Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019

I'm publically labeled as racist in this essay by François Robere "Dealing with racism on Wikipedia"[8], posted to Signpost Submissions [9]

One particular editor repeatedly expressed their beliefs that Jews and Poles had certain historical roles in Eastern Europe - roles that implicate Jews in certain historical crimes, while absolving Poles of the same; beliefs that, according to literature on the subject, are not rooted in reality, but in centuries-old stereotypes and decades of institutional indoctrination; beliefs that, in other words - are racist

Even though it's clear who the author refers to as being a racist editor, I confronted the author for clarification. [10]

They responded that if Signpost tells him that it's too obvious they refer to me, they'll adjust it later. [11]

The article could potentially reach thousands of readers. I'll not tolerate such malicious libel and demand immediate intervention.

François Robere has been already sanctioned for the comparable slander upon me before:

They were warned by Sandstein [12]

Then they were blocked for the above by TonyBallioni: [13] for this: [14]

I'm upset with this groundless libel beyond belief!! GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Ladies, gentlemen, and average Wikipedians, here we see the Streisand effect in action. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

In fairness, I'm not sure where else a complaint like this should go. No comment on the merits. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As for location, I agree; it's the merits that prompted my previous comment. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Even though it's clear who the author refers to" – How is it clear? Robby.is.on (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear, but the OP is determined to make it so. What better place than ANI, the board everyone loves to read to get the latest juicy gossip. Hence, Ian's comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I read through this and didn't see your name mentioned. Maybe you are taking this all too seriously. There is no public acknowledgement that you are the editor type the author is talking about. You'll need more direct evidence of slander to prove you have been maligned. "Reading through the lines" is not considered evidence of an infraction in personal attacks. To be blunt, most of us have been called so many terrible things in our time on Wikipedia, it's best to get a thick skin about these things if you want to work here. Once I was called, "the embodiment of the worst that was happening to Wikipedia" and I just said, "Okay, moving on...."

Unless it is a very blatant, specific personal attack, it's best to just to not take things personally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear editors, it's about me. Here is the link to topic ban they are referring to. [15] There is no other user they were interacting with who received a topic ban in this falsely reported by them circumstances. They also didn't dismiss they are referring to me in their response. [16] They said that if it becomes too apparent, they will remove it later and that the particulars of the case don't matter. Well it matters to me. One more familiar with the topic area will recognize that they referred to me. I’m very concerned with being portrayed as a racist. Please ask them to remove anything that might be connected to me. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody would've guessed it was about you if you didn't post this... A few things in this thread raise concern, but they're not things François Robere has said. - Frood (talk!) 01:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user frequently says "FUCK YOU!" On his edit summaries to IP editors whenever they add-in false information. He has also been known to attack other users who disagree with him and his replies on talk pages barely make sense due to the poor grammar he uses, which is odd as his grammar on most of his edit summaries is better. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at his use of fuck in edit summaries, there have been 8 in the last 500 edits. 1 was reverting himself and 1 did not stick as it seems that Benjaminkirsc was wrong to undo. The other 6 appear to be fixing vandalism. I would prefer that we find other ways of expressing anger than by telling IP editors to fuck off. However, I think the

community consensus, and which makes his fuck offs all the more noticeable Best, Barkeep49 (talk

) 23:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Telling vandals to fuck off is OK" is not my view of the outcome of that RfC at all (I closed that RfC). If there was any consensus at all at that RfC, it is that there are no hard-and-fast rules—there are cases where we should sanction an editor for telling vandals to fuck off, and there are cases where we should let it go with a word of discouragement. If you believe that Benjaminkirsc should be sanctioned for inappropriate edit summaries, then you should not interpret anything in that RfC as prohibiting us from doing so. Mz7 (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your chiming in here Mz7. I will stand by the fact that I am troubled that among his very few edit summaries are so many fuck off statements. I would love to hear from Benjaminkirsc. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking at all the times the word fuck appears in his edit summaries, this one in particular, though from May, stood out to me as pretty bad. While it turns out the date change was vandalism from thirteen days earlier (the previous edit to that page before Benjaminkirsc's was eleven days before his, and most of the vandalism had been cleaned up already), it's not at all clear from "got the date wrong" that he even knew it was vandalism and not just a mistake - and besides, that's burying the lede anyway, since that one was insulting to more people than just the vandal. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. If I’m reading that right, it sounds he is accusing the vandal of being a homosexual, which is problematic because it implies that homosexuality is bad / shameful or something that is linked to vandalism. (I’m not saying that necessarily meant it in a bigoted way. But I believe that it’s best to avoid using homophobic, racist, or other prejudiced terms even when criticizing vandals. Perhaps the policy doesn’t back me up on that this. Michepman (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have notified Benjaminkirsc of this report. – bradv🍁 00:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Benjaminkirsc's responses on his talk page show him to be very cooperative and amenable to suggestions.[27][28] Let's not push the block button before encouraging him once again to change his ways. Swearing, repeatedly, is not acceptable, period. But I'm sure Ben would agree. Let's wait for his response. Thanks, Lourdes 06:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

*Support block - I get the impression they're trolling judging by their editsums[29] as well as their talkpage posts, I'll also add it's one thing telling someone to f off in a huff but it's another to scream "FUCK YOU PERSON WHO GOT THE DATE WRONG! YOU FUCKING FUCKING GAY!"[30] and repeatedly scream "F YOU" to every IP vandal, The quoted editsum IMHO should be a blockable offence. –Davey2010^Talk 09:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Struck as blocking at this point would be punitive, Providing they knock it off I see no reason to block or warm them at this time. –Davey2010^Talk 11:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Why would it be punitive "at this point"? A block may be necessary to stop the incivility. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

They've not continued the incivility .... if they'd continued after this thread then blocking would be preventative but as they've not continued it would only be punitive. –Davey2010^Talk 12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, so sorry =((((((, vandals are evil, what do you want me to do, leave or stop this cursing? Benjaminkirsc (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:DENY

- swearing at vandals and trolls is counterproductive, it often encourages them to do more vandalism because you are giving them exactly what they want - attention.

If you would be interested in learning more about best practice in countering vandalism, and if admins commenting on this thread would be happy with this approach, I'd be prepared to take you through the

WP:CVUA course - that would explain how and when to revert, how to warn vandals appropriately, and how to deal with various types of tricky situation. However, I find some of your edit summaries noted above deeply troubling, and so I have a couple of caveats to this offer: (a) you commit never to swear at or insult anyone in an edit summary ever again, regardless of what they have done; and (b) you apologise unreservedly for using the word 'gay' in the manner you did above. It's possible that you don't realise this, but using words like that as insults, and therefore implying that there is something wrong with being gay, is outrageously offensive - I have no interest in working with you if you actually hold views like that. GirthSummit _(blether)

11:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh no. One edit [[31]] changed it to 2001, and it's vandal. Another edit [[32]] changed it to 1996, that is even worse vandal, since 1996 those platforms wasn't released then, expect for

Windows. Another edit [[33]] that had to do with the caption and also minus one ] to 2010 video games. Caption was like ".miguogh;obou6rf975fovljvkyf4waw4yulihlvsdr0u[98h5438tu6w754689-97r54er7guytf85" and was rude. Also, another edit [[34]], was rude with the dates. Another edit [[35]] was basically wrong with the European date, it said 1994, but it need to say Febuary 23, 1994. But all would be forfeited as needed to change. Benjaminkirsc (talk

) 12:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, I don't see why you are listing these - this discussion is not about whether the reverts were legitimate, it's about your abusive edit summaries. If you are interested in my offer, please indicate that here, and take the necessary steps with regard to me caveats, and we will see whether administrators here would be satisfied with that approach. If you're not interested, feel free to say so and I'll step back and leave you to it. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 01:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Fuck" is a matter of taste, I wouldn't use it on a project space that's open to all, and if it's too frequent and makes other people uncomfortable, they ought to be considerate enough to tone it down. Using "gay" as an insult is a definite no,no, and should be blockable, unless they make a serious attempt to allay the community's concern starting right now. The reply to GS's offer above reads like an attempt at justification which is not a good sign at all. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh Sorry Benjaminkirsc (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a lesson in the use of the word will help. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Not OK My take is this should be a clear warning that such edit tags are not OK. Yes, it can be frustrating to deal with IP vandals but it's best to revert and say nothing else. While Wikipedia isn't censored, I would like to think most topics/pages are safe for work. Sure if you visit a page about a sexual act it may have not safe for work pictures and/or words. I don't expect edit pages of video games to be filled with profanity. Springee (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Benjaminkirsc will you commit to no longer telling vandals to fuck off and to more consistently use edit summaries? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm back: notice that I'm basically not cursing many times but the vandals are so evil, I would need to toured them. @All of you talking in this table. I hope vandals don't come anymore, so I hope to not curse anymore. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc, it's not within your contol whether "vandals don't come anymore". It is entirely within your control to not curse or make homophobic posts. Your commitment this far is not convincing. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

"I would need to toured them." What is that supposed to mean? We'd all like to see vandalism stop but it won't and you need to stop cursing either way. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Robby.is.on, this means they commit crime to Wikipedia. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminkirsc No. In "I would need to toured them." "I" is the subject so obviously there is something you think you need to do. What do you mean by "tour"? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Robby.is.on I mean tortured. That was just a spelling mistake.

Benjaminkirsc That's what's wrong with your approach right there. We do not torture vandals, we do not punish vandals, we ignore vandals. We block their accounts or IP addresses, but only to stop the disruption, not to punish. Shouting and swearing is exactly what they want, so don't do it. Your best bet here is to commit not to swear at anyone in an edit summary again, even if they are vandalising - if you do that, I think most people would be willing to draw a line under this. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Then here is the plan: if anyone who I revert is a random vandal I would send one admin to warn or block them.

• One chance at reform: based on the user's comments above, I genuinely don't think they have the emotional maturity to contribute productively to the encyclopedia, and I don't think they understand what is wrong with their actions. I am willing to give them one more chance, on the condition that they accept GirthSummit's offer for CVU training and proceed to shape up. If they do not show improvement after that, or if they do not accept the offer, then block on
  talk
  ) 18:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Same.

³⁶⁵

21:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this drama or what is this? Benjaminkirsc (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 22:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh god I hope I do learn my lesson. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It's an interesting strategy to play Benjaminkirsc. On the one hand refusing to cede an inch could get you off with no sanction. On the other hand it could make what would have been a nothing incident into something bigger. Personally I really would hope you would take something away from this thread so you can go back to being what appears to be a mostly productive editor. To that end I'll repeat my ask that you agree to stop telling vandals and others to fuck off in edit summaries (but please do feel free to express the thought in your head) and that you make more consistent use of edit summaries in general. If that's something you can agree to we can all go back to being the productive editors we are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I notice. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I feel like a few issues here have gotten confused:

1) Saying "fuck." The community consensus generally seems to be it's not inherently wrong but it does have plenty of potential for fucking up a conversation.

2) Saying "fuck off." For some reason there's a continual debate about that but that's not actually the issue here.

3) Saying "fuck you." Benjaminkirsc didn't tell a vandal to "fuck off," he said "FUCK U GUYS", "FUCK YOU", "FUCK YOU", "FUCK YOU BOY!" and so on. This is a clear violation of

WP:CIVIL

and anyone who wants to debate that can go fuck themselves (and good luck calling me out on that without proving my point).

The problem is rooted in the thinking that vandals are evil. While they are certainly not operating in good faith, I'd still argue that

WP:CIVIL

would require us to not put common vandals on the same level as, say, neo-nazi pedophiles.

@

slaves "employees" of the Church of Scientology and to be banned on sight, we don't need to go yelling "FUCK YOU" at them because that just makes us look bad. Saying "fuck" is not in and of itself forbidden, it's how you use it. I second Barkeep49's thinking that if you promise to stop telling users of any sort to fuck off then we can all go back to business as usual. Ian.thomson (talk

) 02:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Haven't look in detail at the behaviour but I find the use of gay as an insult particularly concerning whether or not fuck was said. Also I agree with others that while vandals can be quite annoying, if you seriously think they should be tortured there's something very wrong with your thinking. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

2 date changes were wrong and for reason it's not what websites would say and that is vandalism.

Bandai Namco's games. Benjaminkirsc (talk

) 16:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Should Benjaminkirsc use fuck in his edit summaries to another editor (e.g. Fuck You, Fuck Off, Go the fuck away, or similar) he shall be subject to a series of escalating blocks.

• Support as proposer. Since Benjaminkirsc seems to not want to voluntarily agree to the ask that Ian.thomson and I made of them, and I am sensitive to Davey2010's point that blocks should be used to stop disruption, this feels like a just outcome. Hopefully no block is ever made because they just stop telling others Fuck You (or similar language) but since they seem determined to not agree voluntarily let's make clear that future violations of Civility will be met with a block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Reading Benjaminkirsc's responses, which occasionally say sorry but never engage in accepting that his choice of language is his responsibility, and which veer off into blaming the vandals; and reading his talk page which has 4 level 4 warnings. I'm struck by how childish he's acting (not

  WP:CIVIL, and then escalating blocks if the problematic behaviour continues. Cabayi (talk

  ) 18:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as per Barkeep49, To quote User:Ian.thomson "Saying "fuck" is not in and of itself forbidden, it's how you use it" - Given they've been using it the wrong way I see no reason why they continue to use it at all,

In some ways I feel somewhat hypercritical supporting this considering I myself tell people to F off occasionally but there's a big difference between saying it occasionally and saying it everyday to various vandals. Anyway support. –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Good eye: To quote that I should stop the curse. Maybe tell me to give up cursing would be a good lesson. Tell me to stop cursing and than that can be good for the future Benjaminkirsc (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been told to stop attacking other editors, on your talk page: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], as well as in this discussion. That is not a proposed future solution - it is something that has already happened. --bonadea contributions talk 19:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea Hope so. So sorry. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal, block 2 weeks now. Benjaminkirsc's replies in this ection show he's not taking this seriously. Warnings are wasted on him. Cabayi (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi I don't understand by "block 2 weeks now" Benjaminkirsc (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a stale account; it has made only 2 edits, on 2 September 2019. However, its edits and foul-mouthed edit summaries suggest that it might be worth looking in the range around that IP for similar activity. Narky Blert (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You mean like this on Sept. 5 as well as calling other editors "Racsists zionists". This editor is fighting a nationalistic battle and has CIR issues as well. Range hardblocked one month.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Poveglia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For context see this discussion and this discussion. Poveglia has proven to be entirely less than helpful in their contributions to these forums. But they have been patently venomous to anyone who attempts to correct them. In our latest installment, they have decided to edit war ([42], [43], [44]) after they took it upon themselves to replace an unsourced birth date with a poorly sourced one, complete with templating the regulars and accusing them of abuse, while restoring poorly sourced content about living people.

This is well short of the conduct we expect from those contributing to our helping regime, it is not the type of behavior that we ought to be exposing newcomers to, specifically on the pages we invite them to in order to seek assistance. GMG^talk 22:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm willing to comment if requested, but otherwise I am recusing myself from this discussion. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• I should do the same as 331dot. But because not everyone is willing to spend a lot of time researching what actually happened here is a summary: GreenMeansGo and myself had a discussion. GreenMeansGo wasn't happy with the result. Not too long later I'm having an unrelated discussion with different people; and GreenMeansGo shows up and tries and fails to escalate things and then files a silly ANI report. How surprising, what a coincidence! See Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming of sanctions for disruptive behavior contains a line about "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." Anyone who takes a look at Wikipedia:Help desk#Inaccurate birthdate for actress CRYSTAL R. FOX 2601:C1:4102:BF19:C03D:697D:F388:369A (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC) will see that I was being helpful while 331dot was not. The weird thing is that anyone can click this link to see what I actually do at those desks; helping people with questions. Poveglia (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The weird thing is that anyone can ... see what I actually do

No, the weird thing is, is that you think you were actually being helpful in giving bad advice that contradicts basic Wikipedia standards regarding sourcing, and the worrying thing is your complete confidence in your abilities. --Calton | Talk 23:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Trouts for everyone involved That bickering reflected poorly on everyone. As for actual opinions on what happened, I do think
  talk
  ) 22:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Thought this looked familiar. It's a A conceptual entity (talk · contribs), aka The Quixotic Potato (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: interaction ban for GreenMeansGo

It is probably time to give GreenMeansGo an interaction ban with me so that he stops trying to do stuff like this. Making it both ways is the same thing, I have no reason to talk to GreenMeansGo, so that is OK with me too. Poveglia (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. From battlefield Sea of Japan naming dispute: I request administrator intervention to block 116.123.84.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for disruption. This follows two previous blocks. The editor has shown a persistent and intractable disregard of the longstanding compromise guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Sea of Japan (East Sea). Virtually all of the editor's contributions are to change the existing geographic names or order of geographic names in favor of reflecting a Korean POV and contrary to the guideline. Following expiration of the last block, this editor has received multiple, progressive user warnings to follow the guideline, with no answer or evidence of interest in complying. --Bsherr (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Previous blocks, multiple warnings since the last block, and exactly zero responses on any talk page. Blocked for 3 months to match the duration of the last block. ST47 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be going a bit over the top.

You're really not good at discussing these things, are you? Nor even at reading what I have actually written. Nor being a real man.

Yes, discussions on political subjects can sometimes go off the rails, but this may have teetered a little over the edge. Gender or gender preference is not something relevant to being a Wikipedia editor, surely? This particular editor does not see his comment as a personal attack so perhaps an admin could do some gentle counselling on how to get along with others? --Pete (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a discussion that began on MY Talk page when a user who hates my guts (a bit like the person posting above) chose to come to MY Talk page and threaten me with Wikipedia sanctions. It has all happened on MY Talk page after he chose to post there. If he doesn't like what I think and say about him on MY Talk page, he could just go away and stop posting on MY Talk page. Knowing this page is an appalling kangaroo court, I won't be posting here again on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Three things happened here, and they are all wrong:

HiLo48, saying that what was linked is simply a personal attack:You comment on the contributor in a hostile way and clearly associate "not being a real man" with something negative, in direct relation to an editor. That's simply not allowed, and if continued will lead to lengthy or infinite blocks very fast. Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia as long as they don't disrupt it.

Your talk page is not something you own. You can not do anything you want there. You are not allowed to break policy there. You are not allowed to make personal attacks on your talk page.

Skyring, the ANI notification suggests bad behaviour I don't want to mention here. That's not civil. It pours oil into the fire.

Merphee, when you tell someone something is a personal attack, and they disagree, then you should not repeat that aggressively or use it as an ad personam to gain the upper hand in a content debate. You should, however, if you want to insist that it is a personal attack, tell them why it is a personal attack which you have not done instead:[45]Lurking shadow ([[User talk:|talk]]) 10:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Makes total sense that HiLo48 would be getting irritated after that exchange. You said your bit, he said his, and you find yourself unable to let it go. As the man said dude, srsly, it's his own talk page. If you're not getting the reaction you want from him, stop poking. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the outcome here should be that Pete is asked to go away and do something to improve the encyclopaedia. Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

boomerang is going to come back around at you. Lupin VII (talk

) 10:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I know this has been closed, but I feel it's important to point out that Merphee has again posted in the thread on MY Talk page, about 30 minutes AFTER the closure of this discussion, and the recommendation above that he not do so. I make no further comment on it, and I won't respond there. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• I originally closed this discussion recommending both editors leave Hilo alone[46] however Merphee doesn't appear to have got the message[47] so reopening for the community to further review if they need or want too, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow. Just saw this here. Sorry my last comment to HiLo48 was in response to him calling me a "gutless wonder". For the record I have not had a chance to respond here now I see this thread. More importantly as my last comment on HiLo48's page, I have no intention of revisiting the discussion with him. I'm actually not fond of being called a "gutless wonder" and accused of not being a real man!! I don't think anyone is here are they?? So yeah. That's all I have to say. Pretty bizarre that Hilo48 can get away with these blatant personal attacks. Merphee (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Merphee "More importantly as my last comment on HiLo48's page, I have no intention of revisiting the discussion with him." That's why you went back to their talk page to pester them some more after being told to leave HiLo alone? Stop gaming the system. Lupin VII (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not see this thread here! I have not commented before this. I definitely would have commented here earlier and defended myself if I had seen it. I have not attacked HiLo48 once at his page today despite relentless personal abuse from him. I did not bring this here to ANI. Full stop. However I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to react to being told by HiLo48 they are a gutless wonder and being accused of not being a real man! Merphee (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Having said that I can absolutely and utterly assure you the community that I will NEVER comment on HiLo48's talk page again. Without any doubt. I'm not fond of being personally abused and attacked to be honest. I hope he will stay away from mine too and keep diuscussions about content to the appropriate article talk page. Merphee (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Merphee Sure you didn't.[48] Lupin VII (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see an acklnowledgement that they wrote what they shouldn't have written, and that a person's gender is not relevant for them editing Wikipedia, from HiLo48 and

No Lupin VII I did not see it earlier. Otherwise I would have commented here and defended myself. Believe me! No. Doubt. About it. Regardless, I never abused HiLo48. What did I actually do today??? Apart from not taking the bait. HiLo48 kept making more and more abusive comments and goading me to come back, when I said I was done! Look at HiLo48's comments within his edits goading me on. Far from HiLo48 saying don't come to my talk page, he kept goadiung me to come back and even discuss other unrelated topics which I refused to do. And yes. I was considering to report him for personal abuse calling me a gutless wonder and accusing me of not being a real man. Read the conversation. It was on his invitation, demanding we continue the discussion on his talk page by abusing and demeaning me and then ridiculing me when I told him I would not, and wanted to keep it content focused on the article talk page instead. The edit history [49] today at User talk:HiLo48 proves I tried to detach from talking with him on his talk page. It also proves I did not take his bait and did not abuse him back when most editors would have!! So exactly what have I done here?? I decided posting it at ANI was not worth it and went out today. I've also assured the community I have absolutely no intention of EVER commenting on his talk page again. what exactly is it that you want from me here? Merphee (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Merphee I don't believe you. My pinging you sure brought you here quickly to respond. Yet, you expect me to believe you completely missed a notification and talk page ANI notice? Lmao. Lupin VII (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a dispute between Merphee & HiLo48? Why was the report made by Skyring? GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• This complaint is worded so problematically I have a hard time believing that it's not intentional. The second diff saying he "doesn't see his comment as a personal attack" was made before he even made the personal attack being reported here. "There was no personal attack" referred to the original message, which itself referred to HiLo referring to Merphee's edit as "POV content". Looking at the edits, this is precisely a POV dispute, so calling content biased or slanted is not a personal attack, that's the dispute. You take it to the talk page and hammer out a consensus or a compromise. HiLo's comment is a bit petty, but it's impossible to overlook that it was provoked by what can only be described as protracted trolling on his own talk page. Focusing on incivility is meaningless if it's being provoked by harassment. Merphee needs to leave HiLo the hell alone. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ooops. Yes. My mistake. Not sure how that happened. I've struck it through above. Nevertheless, if HiLo is inviting Merphee to continue a content discussion on his talk page in order that he can make personal attacks in the belief that incivility is permissible there, than that is contributing to the problem. It is akin to suggesting that a discussion "be taken outside". This isn't how we make an encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

POV accusations

They(HiLo48 and Merphee) accuse each other to push a POV: [50]. Please provide evidence via

• Unhelpful. We do not need these users to expand on their accusations of POV-pushing. This is politics. Of course everyone has a POV. What's not helpful is making accusations to begin with. They need to focus on content, and keep the content neutral relative to the sources, as decided upon by dispute resolution and consensus. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I echo Swarm's comments. Differences of opinion are fine. If one editor sees the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a hot-bed of leftist propaganda, and the other sees it as drifting dangerously close to fascism, that's fine. We have a NPOV policy and Wikipedia is a success story in balancing different points of view to produce a useful resource.

What is not okay is the use of personal abuse. I don't care if it is on a user talk page or not. We give each other latitutde on talk pages to pursue matters and conversations that would be inappropriate on an article talk page. Humour, or observations about hobbies and interests. Or - as we see here - tangential discussions to article content. But a user talk page is not an invitation to "take it outside" and hurl abuse at each other. Civility remains an important plank of Wikipedia. I don't care if one editor doesn't see it as a personal attack. If the other party feels attacked, then it is, and raising it for admin attention is appropriate.

I reverted one of Merphee's edits on the ABC article. The article described Andrew Bolt as a conservative commentator, and that is exactly what Bolt's BLP article says he is. Trying to present Bolt as middle of the road by removing the "conservative" label, as Merphee did, is misleading. I then looked at the article talk page to find that the POV difference had gone over the edge, and that HiLo was going well beyond civil intercourse. Does it matter one little bit if an editor is a "real man"? Or has any other sort of physical characteristic? It is monstrous to suggest that physical appearance or capacity determines fitness to edit here. --Pete (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Skyring Judging by their block log, continued false accusations, and gaming of the system it's quite clear. Merphee is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia in a constructive manner. Lupin VII (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Gaming of the system?? False accusations?? Are you kidding. What are you talking abou tupin VII. Are you talking about HiLo48 or me? As for block history I have been blocked once! For 48 hours. That's it and it was for much less than HiLo48 calling me a "gutless wonder" and not being a real man for NOT wanting to discuss anything but content. In fact, it was because of this type of goading and abuse from HiLo48 in the past that I got caught up in the back forth incivility. HiLo48 was very nearly banned for that style of editing. I follow policy and have improved many articles. Only ytesterday during this dramna I also edited the Liberal Party of Australia article and made thiis edit [51]. How is this edit POV or not constructive to the project?? I think that so many editors get caught up with political labels it is ridiculous and have suggested we have consistency between articles. My suggestion on that article well before it was brought over to ANI shows NPOV. I'm here for the right reason and another editor agreed wholeheartedly. Merphee (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about you, Merphee. Nor is it about HiLo. I'm starting to feel like you two maybe enjoy calling each other names. But please, not on Wikipedia. Is it so much to ask that we work politely together, even if we have massive ideological differences? We have all sorts of procedures to keep things rolling along. Calling out someone based on their behaviour here is one thing. But doing it on their gender or other physical attributes is low and brings the whole project into disrepute. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

How about everyone log off from Wikipedia for 24-48 hours and just chill? So many disputes are in the heat of the moment. Best to move on and let this complaint just go into the ANI archive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we just IBAN these two and be done with the playground level bickering? Blackmane (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't fix the underlying problem, Blackmane. That's a bandaid. HiLo can't help what he is. He does what he thinks is right and when people take a different approach, he gets frustrated and lashes out in whatever way he can. Like a lot of our best editors. They plug away at their own interests, often for extraordinary amounts of time and effort, for zero pay. Merphee I don't know about.

The real problem is that good productive editors get upset and leave the program. Some turn against it. You've been here a long time. You've seen it time and again.

Look at

Five Pillars. Now you tell me how that squares with one editor abusing another on gender grounds, and a senior editor condoning this

. Civility isn't optional. It applies everywhere and everytime:

Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.

Yes, I know that we IAR, but I don't think that's what was intended when that was set up. --Pete (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this edit and this edit are concerning(refusal to communicate on ANI, no mention that their behaviour was wrong). I'll message them that there are still things that they should answer here - like the question if they now understand why insisting on others to be "real men" was bad.Lurking shadow (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Cullen - I had long stopped battling Merphee. I reverted what I saw as inappropriate, unexplained edits on an article, as I would do no matter who it was from. He came to my Talk page with threats. I defended myself. Sure, I may have also mocked him a little (it's very easy and very tempting), but I also tried to deflect the conversation onto a different path entirely. (My personal and unusual views of left and right in the media - I'm happy to put my biases on the line in public.) But he wouldn't play. He persisted in attacking and hectoring me (still all on my Talk page). I got sick of it. I got angry. OK, I'm not supposed to be rude to another editor, even when provoked on my own Talk page, but really, am I not allowed to show some emotion in response to persistent, uninvited badgering like that? Note that in response to my reverting of his edits, he simply reverted (Edit warring?). He did use better Edit summaries. (Several of his earlier edits had NO Edit summaries.) Some time later he added something to that article's talk page, as I had suggested. My efforts led to better editing. So yeah, I know I shouldn't be rude, and I'll try not to in future, but seriously... HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

There's no but acceptable when talking about that

personal attacks are not acceptable. HiLo48 refuses to explicitely acknowledge that everyone, not just those percieved to be "a real man", can edit Wikipedia, and they are not seeing why this is so bad. They make at most weak apologies immediately followed by ".... but the other editor". They don't seem to have grasped the seriousness of the situation.Lurking shadow (talk

) 10:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I know what I did was wrong, but has anyone ever come uninvited to your Talk page and repeatedly attacked you? And it's actually not true to say that everyone can edit Wikipedia. We stop people doing so for a number of reasons. And yes, I know extreme masculinity isn't one of the criteria. What, precisely, do you want from me here? HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I am so sick of HiLo48's personal abuse, constant demeaning and belittling of me and many other editors. HiLo48 just said in his comment directly above "I defended myself. Sure, I may have also mocked him a little (it's very easy and very tempting). How is this not belittling? What is an editor to do with this abuse? Seriously admins, what is any editor supposed to do with that? I didn't take his bait and then the abuse kept going and getting more intense. Culminating in toxic comments about my gender, accusing me of not being a real man and calling me a gutless wonder? HiLo48 has a very long history of constant demeaning abuse toward all other editors who disagree with him. I feel Wikipedia in 2019 should not tolerate disgusting comments about what a real man shou;ld be! This is pure filth and I want it to stop. I am a real man! Thanks very much HiLo48! The edit history [52] from yesterday at User talk:HiLo48 shows me being dragged into a discussion about anything but content. I kept trying to leave it. I did not go there to threaten him. I went there to tell him not to falsely accuse me of POV as I considered it abusive. HiLo48's inline comments goading me and accusing me of not being a real man simply because I refused to discuss anything but content and not take the bait. I kept asking him to instead comment on the article talk page but he didn't. In the end I completely ignored him. To which he then called me a gutless wonder! I mean what is a real man supposed to be in 2019 HiLo48? Fight you? And if I back away I’m accused of not being a real man! He has said it to me on a number of occasions before, so it's nothing new for him and he has said it to others too I'm sure and his deeply ingrained beliefs about men and women. What does this abuse imply more broadly? Why is it tolerated here on Wikipedia? HiLo48 continues to make a joke of it and implies it won't stop. I don't think he even understands how truly f'ed up saying that actually is in modern times. Merphee (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

This time, I'm not biting. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

those who cannot edit Wikipedia anymore

.

siteban

, eventually.

This is for both of you: When you feel attacked, raise it on the talk page of the editor, politely. If the behaviour you don't like continues or the editor dismisses the concern without a valid reason, post a report here, politely. This will cause the minimum of inconvenience to you and having only one editor behaving badly makes the road to a solution much clearer, and the solution will at least not be bad for you.Lurking shadow (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I was not mocking anyone. However I will completely abide by all of that advice and genuinely apologise to the community for my part in this mess and wasting everyone's time. I will also never post anything on Hilo48's talk page again and will keep away from him wherever possible. Merphee (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I completely misread something. I am very sorry about that. You were indeed not mocking anyone.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that Lurking shadow. I appreciate it. Regardless, my apology to the community for my part in this remains. Merphee (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48 many of us let our emotions show sometimes and even something that in other circumstances would cross the line may be ignored because of what lead up to it. But I agree with Cullen328, talking about someone not being a "real man" is way too over the line to just ignore so if it's repeated a long block is quite reasonable. BTW, if someone is bothering you on your talk page and your getting sick of it, your best solution is probably to ask them to leave at least for a few days. It's generally accepted that if someone asks another editor to stay away from their talk page, they should respect that barring reasonable exceptions like essential notices and of course that this isn't misused to avoid scrutiny. I don't care to know the details of the dispute, but I see no reason why it couldn't be resolved in the relevant article talk pages so I don't see that there was any harm in making the request in this case. Nil Einne (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)