Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069

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

Nearly every one of Bachovan's 197 edits has been to add a "short description".

Short descriptions provide a summary of the article for those using a mobile device, and they are the "first impression" many readers have of an article. Accurate short descriptions are important, and need to be well-constructed and free of errors.

Nearly every one of Bachovan's edits has been low-quality, has not improved the article, and has not met the criteria outlined at

I have reached out to this user on their talk page, but no reply.

Today's edits:

• [1] - "French jurist Nobel prize winner"; the word "prize" should be capitalized.
• [2] - "Vice president of the USA 1925 -1929"; use of "USA" and spacing around dash.

Past edits:

• [3] - "Millitary officer".
• [4] - "Founding father".
• [5] - "American buissness official".

• [6] - "Jacobite king disputed".
• [7] - "1804 - 1878 Us Senator".
• [8] - "indoor display of trains where I have been to".
• [9] - "Militia of New york Alexander Hamilton"
• [10] - "A millitary officer".
• [11] - "American physichian and Patriot".
• [12] - "3rd Governer of Pennsylvania".
• [13] - "Brother of John Trumbull".
• [14] - "Tv show".
• [15] - "Scotish peer and colonist".
• [16] - "American Anti federlist lawyer".
• [17] - "Holiday celabrating Abe Lincolns birthday".

Magnolia677 (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. The user edits with the Wikipedia iOS app, which is not fit for purpose. —Kusma (talk

) 10:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I made an edit filter a while ago -- 1139 -- which can be used as a hack to send a message to a named iOS app user. I've only tested it on myself, but in theory it should work to forcefully guide someone onto their talk page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, @ProcrastinatingReader: I don't know if anyone has done anything here, but the user has now made some non-mobile edits and started the Wikipedia Adventure so we may not need to resort to ProcrastinatingReader's ingenious solution, but should remember it for the next case of iOS editing. —Kusma (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone deleted tables on Marvel Cinematic Universe page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik0laX18 (talk • contribs)

As this is a content dispute it's something you should be discussing at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe, rather than here. This doesn't appear to be an admin issue. — Czello 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep this as short as I can. The TL;DR is that MjolnirPants is edit warring to prevent an RfC closure from being implemented, which is a conduct issue, not a content one, as they have refused the suggestions I've made that they dispute the closure at a proper forum.

Some actions that could be taken here: re-open the RfC; overturn it with a different outcome; establish consensus that MjolnirPants is not permitted to edit war indefinitely to prevent the implementation of an RfC result; or enact editing sanctions against some subset of myself, MjolnirPants and Buidhe for reasons of conduct. The action I support is the third, consensus that the RfC result must be implemented (which could be enforced by a partial block of MjolnirPants from Self-referential humor).

By reading the associated pages with this conflict, you will be able to pre-empt MjolnirPants's inevitable response about why the above summary (already too long, for which I apologise) misrepresents the situation—and I urge you all to do so. — Bilorv (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'll just note that the RfC Bilorv opened was done after both EEng and I indicated our willingness to remove much of the material, and that three editors pointed this out in the RfC. It was also me who actually removed most of them. And I'm also not alone in pointing out that this example is different. I'll further note that Bilorv has explicitly refused to discuss this particular issue after asserting without evidence that the source is am imposter and rejecting evidence that contradicted him out of hand, and has been otherwise misrepresenting not only the RfC but the discussion thus far.

As if that weren't enough, the edit war is two-sided: ([19] [20]), and apparently Bilorv can interpret the questionable close however he likes, but I'm "not permitted" to.

Tell me all about it.

16:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I explained in full the reason why the WordPress source is not reliable, and that you persistently ignored and misrepresented my comments is not a refusal to discuss on my part. You continue to do this, as my position is not and never has been that "the source is am [sic] imposter". We received clarification from the closer that your claims about the other RfC participants' comments and the scope of the RfC were not correct and I did not edit war, but reverted once, after new information became available about the closer's intention. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• An edit war over a disputed RfC ending up at ANI - all concerning the page Self-referential humor? Is this some sort of performance art? If so, I'd like to be the first to buy y'all a drink and congratulate you. Can we all meet up somewhere and unwind? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Tell me all about it.

  16:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  MPants at work, sounds great! Please invite EEng and Bilorv too - you're all good people, I'd love to have a drink with any/all of you. Can't understand how it's come to this. Perhaps everyone take a deep breath, remember that all the content is in the history so can be easily retrieved, and head back to the talk page in a few days to focus on what should stay in, and what should come out? GirthSummit _(blether)

  16:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: Four editors walk into a bar.^{[citation needed]} But the last thing we need is more discussion. We need implementation of the results of the first three discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @

  WP:DROPTHESTICK applies to further discussion. I think it's unfortunate that MPants doesn't agree with the developing consensus especially since they were one of the ones objecting to the RFC in the first place. But they are entitled that to that view. So no Wikipedian should be demanding that discussion must end. As I said below, if a clearer consensus does develop then yes Mpants has to accept that. In other words, if you are demanding discussion must end, then yes you are part of the problem. Note that discussion continuing doesn't mean you have to be part of it. IMO there is close enough to consensus already that it's perfectly possible the views of others will either convince MPants they are wrong, or at least convince them consensus is against them. In the even no one else is willing to contribute to the discussion or try to convince Mpants, well meh is gets complicated but let's just see what happens. Nil Einne (talk

  ) 16:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I am in favour of further input, hence why I raised this at ANI. I would be delighted if the RfC was re-opened and we got further opinions for proper clarity. I support the suggestion you made. My comment above, too hastily written to be clear I guess, refers to further discussion amongst the same small set of users (which is what the comment I replied to suggested). — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe the RFC should be reopened? I don't fault
  User:MPants at work claimed there was no need for an RfC but then seems to be acting as the sole barrier against consensus but whatever even given their history, I'm not sure this is enough for action against them so probably best to just make it clear, or not, that consensus is against them rather than wasting time on an ANI. Nil Einne (talk
  ) 16:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why

Tell me all about it.

16:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You chose not to remove the content during the period I was waiting for one of the two of you to make the removal, and only did so after I opened the RfC that I said would be my next step, and then attempted to argue the RfC redundant because some of the content in scope had been removed, without making clear in your comment that you had chosen not to remove all of the material. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to reopen the RfC if that's the best way to resolve this situation. (t · c) buidhe 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think reopening the RfC and continuing discussion would be a good thing. I'd also beg everyone to have a beverage of choice and chill out - we do not need to be at each others' throats over this. MPants and Bilorv seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot with each other. I've seen you both at work in other parts of the project though, and I know you're both Good Peoples. Is there a reset button I can press anywhere? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be delighted for a reopened RfC with further input from uninvolved users, and no further badgering and repeated accusations that I am lying by MjolnirPants. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Tell me all about it.

17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You have misread the first comment you link to. I did not argue that the blog is run by an imposter. (My personal opinion is that it is quite likely that Stamp does run the blog.) I argued that the evidence you presented does not prove to the standard required on Wikipedia that it is run by Stamp. Stop making personal attacks like the above and please re-read my comments so as to avoid further assertions of falsehoods about me. — Bilorv (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF criterion 4), but calling Bilorv a liar over that is going too far. There has been too much snark in that talk page discussion and the RfC already - any chance we could draw a line under that sort of thing now? (I'll buy the first round.) GirthSummit _(blether)

17:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

rightfully diminished

.

I would also note that his claim to have been arguing about "the evidence I presented" is demonstrably false: I presented evidence in response to this, not prior to this comment.

That being said, I'd be happy to discuss this particular case and come to an agreement on whether to keep it. But it's Bilorv who needs to engage here: either by accepting that the blog is Stamp's, or presenting some other rationale for exclusion.

Tell me all about it.

17:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I pointed to five instances in my initial statement where MjolnirPants has made a similar comment about me deliberately lying, three of which claimed that I believe something I never said, but the user won't stop, and literally accused me again of lying in the response this comment edit conflicted on. You told me above, take a deep breath ... and head back to the talk page in a few days, which I tried twice already before bringing it to ANI. I want a specific and clear answer: how can I get MjolnirPants to stop making personal attacks like the above and misrepresenting my opinions to other users? — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, I'll tell you definitively right now:

Stop trying to defend your earlier comments. You got heated during the discussion just like me. You stretched the truth a bit, something I don't do, but lots of other people do. It happens.

It's not worth me commenting on once it stops.

As I just said above, either accept that this is a well-sourced example, or give me a good reason to exclude it that isn't about the quality of the sourcing.

Tell me all about it.

17:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work - I think there are things you could both have done differently in that discussion. I'd be happy to talk to both of you, individually or together, about my views on what those are, if you like. Right now though, it would be brilliant if everyone stepped back from accusations of lying and other bad faith editing, and focused on moving forward, letting water flow under the bridge, etc. Please would you be willing to retract that, accept that Bilorv was acting in good faith (while continuing to believe they were wrong), so we can try and get this back on track? GirthSummit _(blether)

18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I respect and appreciate your efforts here, and I respect your opinion on Bilorv.

But we've gotten to this point because Bilorv has been stonewalling the discussion about this source with repeated, unjustified (and frankly, unjustifiable) claims that the ownership of the blog is in dispute, while refusing to even acknowledge the evidence that it isn't.

If Bilorv will drop that nonsensical position, then there's no problem left to deal with.

Tell me all about it.

19:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:NPA will be enforced for a user who is continuing to call me a liar here and elsewhere, misrepresent my position, and is specifically refusing to retract any of these comments when asked by an admin. Point me to a comment I've made that you think is a personal attack and I'll be willing to engage with you and retract it if I agree. But has MjolnirPants not made it clear several times over now that they have no intention of voluntarily stopping the clear personal attacks? — Bilorv (talk

) 19:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, briefly, because I'm making dinner: I do not assert that you have made any personal attacks towards MP - I thank you for that. However, MP's statements are supported by diffs, and if there is a venue where it is permissible to make accusations of bad faith editing of another user with supporting diffs, this is it. I don't agree with his assessment, but he is permitted to voice it in defense of his own conduct and in response to your accusations.

As I've already said, from where I'm sitting you are both fantastic contributors, and I'm perplexed about how we got to this position. I am not going to unilaterally impose any sanctions here, and I would be very keen to try to mediate this between you, if you are both willing to proceed like that. Other admins might feel differently, and they may well do so before I come back online again tomorrow. All I can do is reiterate that I hold you both in very high esteem, that I think this has come about because of some sort of personality clash, that you could both have done things better, and that I hope that we will be able to find a way through the woods that does not result in anyone being hit with any hammers. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, For the record, my last comment should be read as an implicit yes that moving on is ideal.

I don't think I can, in good faith, retract anything because I just don't buy that Bilorv honestly believed that the RfC was necessary, or that, for example "you can't be serious" somehow refutes the evidence I showed them, or that they're permitted to interpret that close however they like, but I'm not.

I am, however, more than willing to drop the matter and not bring it up again if we can just move on from it. And I'm willing to acknowledge that I may have been too confrontational in addressing that behavior.

If you'd like to come to the talk page and help suss it out, that'd be great. Schazjmd has joined in with a question, which is much more helpful than it might appear, as it's moving things forward.

Tell me all about it.

20:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I have pointed to six diffs throughout this discussion to where MjolnirPants said I was being dishonest and/or lying on pages other than ANI, and such comments were, in context, a personal attack. I don't understand why you are communicating the implication that the situation is equal parts hostility from me and MjolnirPants when you do not think I have made any personal attacks. I'm glad that this thread has raised further scrutiny and action at Talk:Self-referential humor, but I won't continue contributing in a venue where I am expected to tolerate persistent personal attacks and avoid making any personal attacks myself, only to be told that I should be more collegiate to the person attacking me.

No doubt MjolnirPants is delighted to hear that their persistent rudeness has succeeded in its desired effect, but it is clear that there will be no action taken to prevent continued incivility. You are, apparently, permitted to keep misrepresenting my opinion and accusing me of lying, acting in bad faith, and being so stupid that no reasonable human could have the views I hold, with no consequences. Have some fun with it. To Girth Summit: since you think my conduct was imperfect, if you want to email me with descriptions of what you think I did wrong and what I could have done differently then I'll read that and consider it for future content disputes. The following applies to everyone: do not ping me again to this ANI discussion or to Self-referential humor or Talk:Self-referential humor in edit summaries or in comments. — Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been pondering what to do for the best for the last couple of hours this morning, since waking up and seeing the last couple of messages. I intend to respect Bilorv's request that nobody ping them, but I will expand on why I don't see this as an obviously one-sided case which can easily be resolved by applying sanctions to one party. Apologies in advance for what will be a lengthy post.

• Bilorv started the talkpage thread with an edit that suggested that EEng must have reverted them in error, and that expressed an unwillingness to discuss the matter. That was Bilorv's first ever edit to the talk page - it's not like they had been engaged in a long discussion that was going nowhere. 'Either it's my way, or we need an RfC' seems like a very confrontational way to start a talk page thread.
• EEng and MPants both responded fairly positively - they both agreed that a lot of the material that Bilorv wanted to remove should go, but they both believe very strongly that at least one piece of the content should remain. So far, so good - we have three editors who want to remove stuff, but they don't all agree on exactly what. This could have been a fruitful discussion.
• Bilorv's next response was again confrontational - to me, it reads as snarky - and again it says that everything must go, or it's straight to RfC.
• The thread then goes off the rails a bit, and Bilorv starts up an RfC, about 24 hours after the discussion started. That RfC was premature, and the way it was worded, Should the content re-added in this edit, which is partially unsourced and otherwise sourced variously to user-generated websites like Reddit, Tumblr, WordPress, be included in this article?, was completely inappropriate. It's a moot question - nobody was arguing that all of the content should be in the article, there was just disagreement over whether some parts should have been retained. The proper thing to have done would have been to get the discussion back on track, agree on which bits definitely needed to go, make a list of the bits that there was disagreement about, give time for people to look for better sourcing for those bits, and then, if agreement hadn't been reached, open an RfC about those particular bits.
• During the course of the RfC, MPants started cutting away at parts of the content that he agreed didn't belong on the page. While he was doing that, further discussion about one particular bit of content and its sourcing took place. The discussion had, by this point, become quite snarky, but it does cast further doubt on the wording of the RfC (there is disagreement over one of the sources is regular UGC, or whether it's an acceptable self-published source written by a subject-matter expert).
• Buidhe then came along and closed the discussion, finding consensus to remove the material. I don't really understand why the RfC was closed so soon after being opened when active discussion was ongoing, and I don't really understand why Buidhe wrote her close in the way she did: the question was simply 'should this material be included', but Buidhe's close went beyond that, and she appears not to have understood some of the comments that people were making. In my view, it was a bad close of a bad RfC. What then happened was people disagreeing about how to interpret the close, edit warring my multiple parties, accusations of bad faith editing from MPants, and the opening of this ANI thread. In short, to put it bluntly, a
  clusterfuck
  .

So, here we are. We have two excellent, productive editors at loggerheads over whether or not a particular example of a joke should be included in an article about jokes, we've wasted hours of time, and nobody has gained anything. I think that Bilorv could have been more collegiate in the way that they started that discussion, I think that everyone should have tried harder to keep the discussion on-track, I think that RfCs ought to be written much more carefully than that one was (and ideally discussed and agreed upon before being started), and I think that closes need to be done more carefully than that. Buidhe has self-reverted her close, which I thank her for, and MjolnirPants has accepted that he should be less confrontational in the way that he addresses what he perceives to be gaming of the system, which I thank him for (while believing that an apology for going overboard would be helpful).

My suggested solution for what to do now is this: trouts all round for getting into a fight about something so trivial; the reopened RfC should be closed as badly worded and largely moot; and for anyone who still cares about the disputed content to start a new, civilised discussion focussed specifically about whether or not the one particular joke that sparked all this is sufficiently well-sourced to be included as an example in an article about jokes. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, This is a pretty good breakdown of the situation.

I'd be willing to kiss and make up, as it were, but Bilorv's latest comment here makes me think any effort to reach out on my part (or on yours, on my behalf) would likely only make things worse.

P.S. I really appreciate your offer to mediate and your efforts to resolve this through discussion. It's a rare thing to see on this page, and I'm a little disappointed we weren't able to pursue that.

I won't ping Bilorv, but if they want to show up and engage in some productive discussion, my offer to act as if this tiff never took place stands.

Tell me all about it.

13:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have only read this ANI thread and the only diffs I've looked at are the first four in @Girth Summit's summary above so I admit that I am far from well versed in this conflict. But reading that summary of events, I don't understand the conclusion that Mpants gets a trout. That summary lists nothing wrong they did, only battleground behavior by Bilorv. Now I think this thread suggests that isn't actually the case nor what GS believes. But it seems like there has been an unwillingness to actually take seriously Bilorv's (diff supported) claims, not even to say "I've looked at them and don't believe they're justified". Instead the focus from the very start seems to be "let's all have a pint" which I get to be a very British culturally appropriate way to defuse a tense situation and is perhaps a natural response to Bilorv's having have come into this article hot and heavy rather than collaboratively and to have escalated it (quick RfC, coming to ANI). By handling it this way, Mpants basically off the hook with no stated scrutiny because they agreed to have the pint. If Mpants is innocent here we should say that rather than both sides it with a double trout. And if Mpants isn't innocent, we should not just effectively tell Bilorv to chill but acknowledge that by a minimum acknowledging and naming it, and then find a way forward which in this case seems clear and already in progress which is great. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, apologies for not being clearer. My statement above was intended not to be a complete summary of the whole situation, rather an explanation of why I dont think the blame is one sided. I thought I'd been clear about that in the first paragraph, but if you didn't pick that up then obviously I wasn't clear enough. For the record, I think that MPants accusations of lying were uncalled for, I think that he was at least as responsible for the snark and the derailing of the discussion as Bilorv, and I have called on him to apologise. It is not, and has not been, my intention to vilify Bilorv. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you saying that. Knowing you the way I do, I suspected that was your thinking all along. However I think (having now read this thread twice) that was the first time anyone who isn't Bilorv explicitly suggested that the accusations of lying by Mpants were uncalled for. I think this kind of conflict resolution, that is attempts to get two experienced and respected editors to move past past issues without ever seriously examining the past, is a common tendency at ANI isn't actually productive. There's a reason that in real life we have truth and reconciliation commissions rather than just reconciliation commissions. That and what I suspect to be a bit of American/British cultural differences in how to handle these situations is why I choose to comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I'd like to push back on that slightly. If you read through all of my comments, I think you'll see the I've told MPants that I think the accusations of lying were uncalled for more than once; I've also asked him to retract them, and said that I think he should apologise. I've tried to do that in a reconciliatory manner, and I've indicated that I think there is some fault on both sides - but I have told him that I think that was out of line. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

​I should add that, while pushing back against that particular observation, I appreciate the other thoughts. As you know, we get no training in dispute resolution when we become admins, so I'm very much feeling my way in this area. Other people's perspectives are always worth listening to and reflecting on, and I'm always grateful to receive yours, so thank you. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, Barkeep's an arb so you have to say that. EEng 20:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

EEng, Barkeep took me through NPP school before he was an admin, he nominated me for RfA before he was an arb. He has given me reliable and consistently good counsel for almost all of my time here. To say that I trust his judgment would be an understatement, and that's got nothing to do with him being an arb. As you know, I have a high regard for you (and for everyone else in this thread), but that comment was beneath you. I hope you will retract it. I genuinely don't want any hard feelings between us.

I am pressed for time right now, but would like to make more comments on this thread tomorrow. This one stuck out as being important to address immediately. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Beneath me? I'd ask you, sir, to bear in mind just who it is you're addressing – nothing's beneath me! Now look, Summit, my comment was in the exact same spirit as the photo caption here [21] (for which I was briefly blocked, actually [22], but of course I never learn). Surely at a second look you can see it's a tease. Once you're an arb it's like being a movie star – you can't just go into a restaurant and be treated like a normal person. EEng 02:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I was talking with someone on the Wiki Discord yesterday and during that conversation they went out of their way to ping Oshwah to do something for them. It was great to not be recognized by someone and to simultaneously be in the presence of someone more wiki famous (at least on discord) than I. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies EEng, I was having a sense of humour outage there. Tease accepted. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us, and I've got the blocks to prove it. EEng 18:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@GS:, you're right that you did say at one point that calling Bilorv a liar over that is going too far which I had previously missed. I think you're suggesting that you reiterated that here where you ask everyone to step back from the accusations of lying and bad faith and for Mpants to revert. Though what you're asking to be reverted isn't clear to me as I originally read it that you were asking Mpants to revert their most recent comment where they wrote in bold that Bilorv needed to retract everything in order for things to move forward. I thought that's what you were asking to be reverted because it seemed consistent with the bulk of the comment about having this be water under the bridge. In your subsequent reply to Bilorv you say you don't agree with Mpants assessment while also suggesting there is no need for Mpants to stop because we're at ANI.

The next message is your summary that lead to my initial comment. Why does Bilorv get thousand of bytes pointed at them instead of Mpants? Seemingly because rather than saying they want to move on at the RfC (as Mpants does here right after saying they won't retract anything despite saying they went too far) they're saying they want to move on by leaving this whole dispute behind. Why is one of those acceptable and the other not, or at least not so acceptable that it requires a mammoth point by point detailing of what they did wrong? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Having now actually examined the diffs, I do think both editors were wrong. Bilorv was too quick to to launch an RfC. An RfC is a method of dispute resolution but it is a costly one and especially since there two editors in Mpants and Eeng who were willing to make changes which could have been discussed. Maybe there's history not presented here why that approach wasn't taken but not taking it comes with a cost. This is short of an ideal but is not, as an isolated incident, a violation of any policies or guidelines. MjolnirPants repeatedly calling Bilorv a liar, including here, and being unwilling to retract any of it is a violation of policies and guidelines. Saying they went too far in the abstract while defending every specific is no mitigation for me. Since Bilorv has indicated they're withdrawing from the topic area I don't think a block is justified as it would not be preventive but similar behavior in the future, or a pattern of this behavior, would certainly be sanctionable. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Tell me all about it.

  19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Mr Pants, try not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. EEng 19:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I certainly am not asking you to debate or even interact with me, which is why I did not address my comments to you MP. You wrote above Bilorv, you know, if you don't like being called a liar so at least in that moment you seemed to accept that was a fair characterization of what you did say. So I stand by what I wrote. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Tell me all about it.

  20:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  We're at ANI and I am an admin acting in an UNINVOLVED capacity so the content of these last two messages from MP to me are within community norms. However it is these kinds of messages, presented clearly in diffs by Bilorv, why I have come to the conclusion that future such behavior, when addressed in the moment, or a pattern of such behavior, presented at an appropriate conduct forum, would be sanctionable. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, Not sure what you're hinting at with the comment about community norms, but if you're implying that there's some personal attacks in those messages, I'd strongly advise you to get a second opinion.

  As for the rest, well... The "pattern of behavior" you keep pointing to was me responding to blatant gaming and dishonesty by pointing it out. I've already acknowledged that the way I pointed it out was not ideal, and indicated my willingness to make nice with Bilorv. What more do you want? You want me to lie about what I believe about Bilorv's repeated refusals to discuss things that made their argument look bad? You want a pound of flesh and maybe my left pinkie as penance?

  And what do you think that's going to accomplish? I'll tell you something worth thinking about: Before you commented here, I was planning on asking Girth how best to approach Bilorv to get them to come back and discuss improving the article. I was eager to set this behind me, try to make up and start over with Bilorv and move on.

  But since you commented I'm pissy again, because I came here to see what Girth might have said in a closing statement, and instead got to read your comments complaining that I wasn't punished harshly enough to suit you. And now Bilorv's back, re-litigating things again.

  I sure hope for your sake that's what you were aiming for, and you've got a long game here. Because otherwise, your participation here has been nothing short of disruptive. You'd do better to take notes from Girth's handling of this than suggest they take notes from yours, because progress was being made right until you showed up.

  Tell me all about it.

  22:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  I will agree that this thread was headed towards a resolution before I showed up. That resolution was that your actions and Bilorv's actions were being labeled as equally disruptive, or Bilorv's as worse, and Bilorv had decided to leave the area. I found that resolution unsatisfactory from an initial glance and reading more deeply saw nothing to change my mind. So I did decide to say something rather than let that be the resolution, especially because I knew that the editor I would be addressing my remarks to, GS, was a friend of mine and so we'd be able to have a productive conversation about our thinking.

  What was I hoping for when I wrote that comment? I was hoping that the outcome of the thread would be to say that Bilorv's actions were less than ideal and that your actions violated our behavioral policies and guidelines which would hopefully cause you to not repeat those actions in the future with a different editor. I am pleased that Bilorv below gave an unreserved apology to Eeng; that was appropriate and Eeng deserved that, so that's a more positive outcome of this discussion than if I had said nothing. As for the rest, we'll see, but my hope is not for you to be punished - or at least not that you are punished in the

  WP:PUNISH sense - but to be warned appropriately. Barkeep49 (talk

  ) 23:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, I'll repeat what I said above: There's a difference between "you're a liar" and "you told a lie," and I've seen that difference get highlighted many, many times on this page and elsewhere by many, many editors. In fact, I see the difference between "you're a Nazi" and "Your edits look like Nazi edits" being pointed out to an IP in the very next thread below.

  In your view, those were personal attacks, but there's evidence all over the place that your view is outside the norm.

  And I'd like to remind you that accepting a resolution to a conflict which you find unsatisfactory is far more in keeping with our norms and policies than stirring shit up again in the hopes that you'll be satisfied by the outcome. In fact, I'm pretty sure that

  WP:STICK covers that exact situation, and I've never seen where any exception is carved out for admins. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

  00:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  I wasn't expecting or hoping for the kind of response you gave in reply to Bilorv below @MjolnirPants but would say that's a fine statement that is helpful in genuinely moving this towards a productive outcome. Credit to you for saying it. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, Just keep my last response to you in mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict on anything post-19:00) @
  assumed bad faith that they wouldn't, another mistake. I opened the RfC just to draw more attention to the discussion. (Such a thing could have been better achieved by a WikiProject or noticeboard message, perhaps.) I now agree that I attempted escalation too soon. As to the RfC wording, no-one had pointed to Gage as a case that had stronger sourcing (merely as something so "Not negotiable" as to not need a reason). The next mistake is that I replied with hostility when MjolnirPants engaged me in hostility. I should have stood back a lot more. The reason I didn't was because I thought they would conflate silence with consensus or use silence as an opportunity to misrepresent what I had said or believed. Anyone who has read this ANI thread has seen that they did do this the moment I stepped away. Still, there were other ways I could have acted.

  Anyway, that's several mistakes of mine: careless initial comments, assuming bad faith, reflecting back hostility and choosing the wrong way to bring further attention to the discussion. However, the situation on the table is that when I brought this matter to ANI, and during the discussion, an editor was making personal attacks about me and claiming I said things that I never said both to an admin on ANI and on other pages, after being asked to stop and retract such comments. No-one believes that I was, by my reading of the comments above, continuing to make disruptive actions, but MjolnirPants was. The situation remains that MjolnirPants has offered to "kiss and make up", but has still not said that they will stop saying to other editors that my actions were deliberately duplicitous or my beliefs on the subject matter so "nonsensical" that I must be lying. The only comment they have made that even touches on admitting wrongdoing is I may have been too confrontational in addressing [that Bilorv lied intentionally and behaved maliciously]. Their most recent comment at Talk:Self-referential humor, after I made it clear that I was not going to participate further there, is a fresh claim that I said something that I never said. Meanwhile, they are jovial when referring to every other editor in this conversation, and switch to extremely hostile when talking to or about me. Despite a large number of comments I typed out but didn't submit because they were too hostile, or a number of personal attacks that I refrained from making, and a number of other ways in which I chose not to level up the hostility, I'm being given the same trout that someone who is continuing to make personal attacks as of this comment is getting.

  I will not return to the discussion and engage in dispute resolution, as it is simply not worth the time, but I will apologise directly to you, MjolnirPants, and make sure no grudge is left behind if you describe the ways in which you believe you have acted wrongly, and I feel like that addresses the concerns me and others have raised with your actions. To EEng, I owe you an apology either way for assuming bad faith of you, and while I remain in disagreement with your "confused" page, there has been an MfD on that and this is not double jeopardy. — Bilorv (talk
  ) 21:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  For the record, I did not say or imply that anyone is confused, as explained -- not by me -- here [23]. EEng 02:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Bilorv, I am sorry if this was not clear in my comments but I don't think you deserve the same trout as MP. Or more accurately I think you deserve a "was less than ideal" (maybe that's a trout) for the reasons you note above, while MP needs a warning. I'm pinging Bilorv in hopes that they at least read the edit summary where I am underlining the "not the same trout" message even if they choose to ignore the rest of this, which I write for other uninvolved editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Bilorv, there's a lot wrong with what you've said here, but I'm ignoring that to address your last paragraph: you don't have to apologize. You don't have to make it up to me, to recriminate yourself or count your sins. None of the stuff either of us accused the other of is important. The bad news is, both of us could have handled that better. The good news is, we've still got the chance to go handle it better.

  At the beginning there, I was being playful, not hostile. I love joking around, especially when I can do so while simultaneously working on improving an article. I understand that it didn't come across that way, and I surely regret that. I'm not out to win fights or put anyone in their place or tear anyone down, and if anything I said came across that way, then it's on me for not being more clear. I also have a particular dislike for sneakiness and game-playing, so I tend to react strongly to anything that comes across that way, sometimes more strongly than is warranted.

  Now, it'd be nice if you were to look at the things I said you were lying about and try to understand why I saw dishonesty there, but like I said: I'm not out to put anyone in their place. If it rankles you too much to do that, then fine. The only thing I want from you is for you to come back to the page and work towards improving it. Or not. If you're burned out with talking to me, that's fine, we can go our separate ways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Now, it'd be nice if you were to look at the things I said you were lying about and try to understand why I saw dishonesty there – I address this at numerous points in my comments above, including descriptions of what I did wrong. However, it strikes me that you are still accusing me of lying and having malicious ulterior motives that would contradict what I described as my reasoning for such edits above. Anyone reading this discussion top to bottom (firstly, has my deepest sympathies, and secondly) should take note that this comment accusing me of "blatant gaming and dishonesty" comes after my comment above. Finally, my comment do not ping me again to this ANI discussion (etc.) still applies (and has nothing to do with whether I will or will not choose to respond further). — Bilorv (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Welp. I tried. Girth Summit this is what I meant when I said trying to reach out now wouldn't go over well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49 You say you don't think a block is justified "... but similar behavior in the future, or a pattern of this behavior, would certainly be sanctionable" which may mean you're unaware what's gone on elsewhere, e.g. quotes of MjolnirPants on the the Nicholas Wade talk page: "That edit was not even close to a compromise, and in fact, resembles more the sort of edit I might expect from some random edgelord IP who decided to troll this discussion." ... "I literally have nothing more to say to editors who insist upon lying about policy and making WP:POINTy edits. I don't care what you think about any of this. The only proposal that's gotten any traction here was mine, so I'm implementing it, and ready to call in an admin when the inevitable edit war starts." ... "The continued arguments against it are not persuasive in the slightest, and do more to undermine my faith in the editors making them than anything else." ... "To call the quotes from actual scientists about Wade's misrepresentation of their work "attacks" is complete and utter bullshit." ... "It's not about what I believe, as I've said countless times thus far, and which should be obvious to anyone with the competence to work on this project, but what the actual experts in this subject believe." ... "Wait, strike that, you absolutely are suggesting that, what I mean to ask is if you've got the cajones to state it outright, so we can just get the WP:AE ball rolling on your impending topic ban right away." ... "Read the way I had to poke and prod to get them to contribute anything helpful for three fucking days." I'd appreciate it if TonyBallioni would say whether the removal of the indefinite block of MjolnirPants was per the common unblocking reason. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since I’ve been pinged multiple times: the {{OversightBlock}} had nothing to do with anything content related. All oversight blocks are immediately discussed after blocking on the list. There was even at the time of the block agreement that unblocking should happen relatively easily. Several months ago someone asked me about unblocking MPants and I raised the issue on the functionaries list. There was consensus to unblock if he wanted it, but he didn’t at the time based on his email communication to me. He emailed me the day I unblocked him, saying he wanted to be unblocked. As there was consensus amongst the group of individuals who had the ability to review the block reason for an unblock, I unblocked him at his request. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Barkeep49, I think your criticisms of the nature of some of my comments above are justified. In my mind, I thought I'd made my opinion clear that MPants' accusations of lying were unfair, unnecessary, and needed to stop; the much longer exposition of what I saw as being wrong about what Bilorv had done was intended to explain why I didn't simply click the block button - I didn't see it as a one-sided issue, and I wanted to explain why. I'm grateful to both editors for acknowledging that they could have done things better, and I hope that they will be able to move forward. I can see however that the sheer volume of commentary on one side, and not the other, does look imbalanced, so I apologise to Bilorv for that. (I'm going to continue to respect their wish not the be pinged, but I hope they see that.) I'll add that my 'trouts all round' suggestion was not meant to be a reflection on how far I thought each user had transgressed policies/guidelines/behavioural norms during the dispute, but about their mutual decision to get into a snarky content dispute about the inclusion/exclusion of a joke in an article about jokes. I can understand why someone might get emotional, and even jump to conclusions about bad faith, when they're editing about race and genetics, gender identity, political subjects, or similar such contentious areas: articles on subjects like that have great potential to offend, and the project does suffer from bad actors in those areas who wish to skew our coverage to align with their own POV. In this area though, I'd have thought that a great deal more GF could have been Aed all round right from the get-go, which is why I suggested the fish. If anyone wants to serve me with one for how I've handled this, I will find a home for it in my pond. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The score so far

In the past two weeks, this one article has spawned...

• One MfD
• One RfC
• One ANI thread

... all initiated by Bilorv. I think it's time he quit WP:Diffusing conflict and concentrated on working towards real consensus with other interested editors. EEng 01:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Correction: Just realized it was Bilcat who initiated the MfD. I get him confused with Bilorv. EEng 01:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

EEng, You should add them to that page. Might be helpful in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(Ironic, isn't it?) Elli (talk | contribs) 05:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of irony... EEng 05:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• The article is terrible. I can't tell from it whether any of the following is funny.
  1. In Soviet Russia, bar walks into Phineas Gage.
  2. In Soviet Russia, Phineas Gage walks into a bar.

I demand (DEMAND!) you improve the article to GA standard before I have to look at it again. And also, that it contains an answer to my questions —Kusma (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, the first is funny, the second is confused, per the principle of never breed a hybrid joke without careful scientific study of the product, lest you release an abomination upon the land.

But in all seriousness, I agree with you. Pages like this can be difficult to work on, as sources which directly address the subject are rare and esoteric, whereas sources which use the subject are so prolific that simply sorting out the wheat from the chaff is tedious work. I've got a promise from my local librarian to do a comprehensive search later this week for sources on the philosophy, psychology and history of comedy, with an emphasis on self-referential comedy, but there are no guarantees they will produce results (I was unable to find anything useful in the library, myself).

Tell me all about it.

13:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan that is better than my jokes. Good luck! —Kusma (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bilorv that MjolnirPants may have engaged in edit warring and may have failed to accept consensus, and also may have been uncivil in discussions. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 00:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

66,892 characters in this section by my count (not including this comment). Is someone already slotted in to write the

MinecrafterDE15

This user keeps adding some false information about the television channels. Administrators advised the others to report this user here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geraldo_Perez#Block_user --162.222.81.217 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I see that MinecrafterDE15 (talk · contribs) has had several edits reverted. However, please provide some details so people here, with no knowledge of the topic, can see what the false information is. Before posting here, someone should have posted at the user's talk explaining the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This user added some false details about the televisions channels broadcasting in Switzerland, but only in France. --162.222.83.108 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked through their latest edits since Tuesday...and I found nothing wrong. They're merely clearing up that Switzerland gets several versions of children's networks in different languages from different countries and domestically, which are easily confirmed by the CHE cable systems that carry them (Switzerland has four official languages, so this is all proper). The same edits in mid-May also clear up that systems in CHE carry German, French and Italian versions of the networks in each country. Basically...I'm not seeing a welcome message. Or a teahouse invite. I'm seeing someone looking at a certain name and immediately trying to block them on very shaky ground when they're being a quiet

You don't understand, Several televisions channels like

Nickelodeon Switzerland who is broadcasting, not Nickelodeon France, also for Disney Channel France and others. --162.222.83.108 (talk

) 01:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The infobox shows it on Swiss cable and satellite systems and its easily confirmable on their site...it simply isn't vandalism. The only issue I found in any of their edits was likely a simple mis-translation of one of Nickelodeon's French competitors which I didn't even need to bother with a mention of. That's it. There's no vandalism here at all. Again...Switzerland has multiple languages and carries multiple language versions of networks, including the domestic French and Italian versions of those networks beyond their regular German versions.

chatter

) 02:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I watched these channels but no commercial in Switzerland. --162.222.83.250 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You can talk to this user if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grasshalm3. --162.222.83.250 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've rolled back your edits...it's clear that you're not listening to my read on the situation that there is no vandalism here. Stop harassing this user, or you're going to end up with a

chatter

) 19:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)