Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149

I began tracking GabrielPenn4223 (talk · contribs)'s contributions after they made this questionable move request last month, and in the time since, I've noticed some behavior that is concerning, to say the least.

They have been combative with other users over edits that are several years old, combative in general, have previously been blocked for inappropriate behavior, has created draft articles in mainspace, was nearly blocked again, nominated numerous articles for GA status despite not being a significant contributor to them, created questionable redirects, made questionable requests for deletion, made questionable requests for page renaming, made requests that would clearly fail, and has apparently done all of these things under the guise of we are not all perfect.

It seems that after being told to stop nominating articles for GA status (and apologizing for their behavior), they have moved on to nominating articles for deletion or redirect, often without any consideration to their subject matter, general notability, or existing references. Ultimately, I believe their intentions, while good in nature, are misguided, and they are creating more and wholly unnecessary work for other editors, and I've seen enough of it that I thought it might be prudent to open a discussion into their editing patterns. Of course, I could be wildly off base here, but as a (mostly) uninvolved third party, I felt like it was time to bring these edits to attention. GSK (talk • edits) 05:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I apollogize and I will promise to improve. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually I'm a fairly brand new editor to Wikipedia so you know I make mistakes at times. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Do I probably need to stop nominating redirects or pages for deletion/discussion? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, GSK. Thanks for the message, and I am a fairly new editor to Wikipedia as you know. and I make mistakes. I've stopped nominating and reviewing GA's nearly an entire month ago and

everyone makes mistakes. I clearly have apologized to users who have gave me negative feedback or I got negative feedback over with. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• CIR block per User:GabrielPenn4223/We All Are Not Perfect. The community should not have to tolerate this much trouble. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to get my best to improve, I don't want to be blocked again. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support CIR block the user has done nothing productive for Wikipedia, and has been a massive
  WP:TIMESINK around the GA process. Many editors have asked that they start making constructive edits, but they continue being disruptive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk
  ) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've stopped making everything miscallenous (GA, moves, AfDs, RfDs, you name that) until A. I have clearly understood and read all of these rules. I have already made a proper article or redirect. I have made constructive edits for at least 90 days or something longer, as mentioned at the teahouse. I've started making constructive edits by adding a news source. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  By "constructive edit", you mean adding erroneous text which other users have to clean up? What, do you think you should be praised, as you hoped when you posted your self-flagellating user essay on so many talk pages? What is the purpose of citations on Wikipedia, GabrielPenn4223? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-purpose-of-citing-an-article-in-Wikipedia#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20citing%20articles,accuracy%20of%20the%20information%20presented. This states: The purpose of citing articles in Wikipedia is to provide reliable and verifiable sources of information to support the claims made in the article. By citing sources, Wikipedia articles aim to demonstrate the validity and accuracy of the information presented. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  quora isn't a generally reliable source. we have reliable rules set. see

  WP:Quora Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen}

  14:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh it's not a reliable source, citations are to provide verifiable sources to define claims made in the article. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Adding CN tags to nearly every single line of an article is also not acceptable behavior. GSK (talk • edits) 15:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Alright I'm going to stop. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I added a "unreferenced section" template to a entirely unreferenced section. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yup, indefinite CIR block, no further questions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• This seems a pretty clear case of CIR to me, and it doesn't appear the prior block has had the required effect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have made a constructive contribution today. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I have already needed to correct your "constructive contribution" because it added erroneous text. Furthermore, I support a CIR block. GSK (talk • edits) 14:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  How long? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Support CIR block per AirshipJungleman29 and Chris Troutman Babysharkboss2!! ^{Killer Queen} 14:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC

• Support CIR block It is always good that a user is willing to admit their own shortcomings, but when their history is overwhelmingly filled with disruptive behavior, the user should be blocked to prevent more disruption regardless of their intent.
  The Night Watch (talk)
  15:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I mostly admit my shortcomings. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  @GabrielPenn4223: Can you clarify "mostly", please? ——Serial 15:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Generally I ask on a page or the TeaHouse and get advice, and if I get advice I take it most of the time. I stopped making GAs, AfDs, RMs, RfDs, AfCs, etc. not until I read the rules or understand what these are. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  In case it's indefinite maybe try to wait six months with the standard offer? or maybe shorter block GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I think they are lucky to not be indeffed already - Blablubbs used the indefinite checkuser block template but only set the block length for two weeks. I'm wondering if that was a misclick. Either way I would support a CIR block now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if it was a misclick GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I am apologizing for my behavior; I'm going to improve articles instead and stop the "we all are not perfect thing.". I am new, and it's a hard task to improve articles. I will not make GA nominations, AfDs, moves RfDs AfCs ever again until I clearly understand what these are and read the rules of these. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Gabriel. This is based on the evidence presented here and my own review of their behavior. However, this is not a
  community ban.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• Tim Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thomas Basboll is continuing to engage in tendentious

The admin @

User_talk:Thomas_Basboll#Stonewalling. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 06:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just about to post this over at

WP:ANEW

, because these three diffs are bright line three reverts in 24 hours:

• 19:00 2024-02-04
• 06:01 2024-02-05
• 06:15 2024-02-05

This is also after a long history of reverting any changes made to the Controversy section of the

WP:NPOVN so quickly, exactly because it was clear that Basboll had a history of stonewalling behavior on the page itself. Loki (talk

) 06:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

From the beginning, I believe this should have been raised at

talk

) 06:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• There was a lot of discussion at the noticeboard over an issue and consensus emerged, but Thomas Basboll is reverting every edit to effect that consensus. Suggests if this continues a partial (page) block might be the best way to prevent this problem continuing. Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  This looks like something of a misrepresentation of the discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt, where there were two options, both of which did mention online shaming, while the version that Hemiauchenia last made at Tim Hunt did not. It's certainly not true that TB is the only person advocating inclusion of the words (Firefangledfeathers wrote "I think the online shaming must be mentioned"). The two options were suggested on 3rd Feb, and here we are two days later claiming a consensus on an extremely divisive issue - it needs more time for discussion. Hemiauchenia's edit was therefore not changing an article according to a clear consensus arrived after adequate discussion. It is really, really unhelpful that this content dispute has been scattered over so many noticeboards. Let's fix on one place to discuss, and if discussion fails, go to DR. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know with certainty that there's clear consensus for any particular version, but we did have (rough, early) consensus at the NPOVN noticeboard about a better starting point than TB's preferred version. It was apparent very early on in the process that consensus was against TB's version, so TB's reverts to that version are definitely evidence of stonewalling. Some of the strongest consensus items—that the incident should not be presented primarily as one of online shaming and that some quoted material should be included—have been reverted to the point of disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Having participated in the

WP:BLUDGEONING

. Overall, I find Thomas B's behavior rather disruptive.

I suggest for the page protection to be lifted and the RfC to be withdrawn, as I think both are going to be a needless time sink. Given that Thomas B was warned already but continued to revert afterwards and appears to have violated

WP:3RR, I suggest to appropriately sanction this user so that the disruption ceases. NicolausPrime (talk

) 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

No comment on who is wright or rong but it's fully protected for a week so it can be discussed without reversions. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is a great idea. It's already been discussed, quite a bit, at two different places, for over a week now. We're at the point where there is a clear consensus, and the issue is that the one in this

WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY discussion keeps on reverting any change made to that section of the article. Loki (talk

) 19:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Could someone, please, decide where this wretched debate is going to take place, so that those of us who failed to notice that a consensus-for-all-eternity was being formed in the last week, can take part in it? Elemimele (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

What a peculiar comment. The 'consensus for all eternity' being pressed is the the prior one which apparently cannot be changed because it has stood for a while! Remember

WP:CCC. Bon courage (talk

) 08:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've now made an RfC to hopefully resolve the dispute: Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: thank you for this constructive step forwards. Elemimele (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have no personal knowledge of events before NPOVN, where I joined the discussion, which moved back to the talk page, but I agree that Thomas B seems very invested in defending Tim Hunt. I understand the BLP concern but accuracy always trumps accusations of libel. If true, the episode is important and Thomas B seems determined to omit it. As I pointed out, if weight is a concern, there is always the option to add favorable material. Surely this is possible when the subject has won a Nobel Prize. Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

(somewhat later) As an illustration: [25] was written a half hour after the notice of this complaint was posted to his talk page, so apparently he thought it was an acceptable thing to say. Elinruby (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have disengaged with Elinruby. I will not bother this user in the future.

talk

) 07:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then I shall ask: could you please be clear whether you have any kind of connection to Hunt? Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no connection to Hunt.

talk

) 08:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@

Thomas Basboll: what did you mean when you said "I followed the controversy closely at the time, and even participated in it, so I have lots to contribute."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs

) 20:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I participated in online discussions about it on various platforms.

talk

) 20:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As an innocent coming to this article from NPOVN thinking it a detail about a scientist's bio, I have since discovered it's a gamergate-adjacent culture war battle that sparked interest in the Daily Mail and Breitbart. The attempt was made there to reframe the issue not as being with a white man, but with the black women (Connie St Louis) who reported his comments.[26] It goes without saying Wikipedia needs to be a million miles from buying into that. Bon courage (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like some others, you're on a steep learning curve about this event. As I've been saying from the beginning, it was a major shitstorm, and once the dust settled there were really only two sentences you could say about it in Hunt's bio without feeling dirty.

talk

) 11:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, scholarly journals and quality news outlets have managed to cover this quite well, and since Wikipedia only need cover accepted knowledge as covered in quality RS we are good to go. There is plenty so long as one ignores the Daily Mail/Breitbart/etc crap. While searching for sources I noticed you have blogged at quite enormous length about this, about how in your view Hunt was wronged a saint and Connie St Louis was the baddie in multiple ways, and you have vowed to take the fight to anyone who says Hunt is sexist. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to consult the policy, but I think you're violating some sort of rule about referring to my work off-Wiki. Do you want to delete it now, or should we look it up?

talk

) 11:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:COI, where selective linking to off-wiki content is even sometimes necessary to evaluate a case. Bon courage (talk

) 13:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have left you a message on your talk page. I will be disengaging with you for the time being.

talk

) 13:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm thank you for that very illuminating piece of information Bon courage Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and are prohibited." (

talk

) 08:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't "outed" you I pointed out that you've been banging on about this for years

Really, I am busy and have spent quite enough time on a topic that you are for whatever reason fixated upon. If and when you condescend to let mere mortals touch the topic I may have some suggestions, but meanwhile you might want to acquaint yourself with the recent Arbcom case where Volunteer Marek really was outed and endangered before you wave that policy around. I don't think that word means what you think it means. As for harassment... Am I really hearing this from someone who's painted me as ignorant and incapable of intellectual rigor? Who told me I had no business editing this article? I feel the need to wash my typing fingers now. It's interesting that you mention a name change. First of all it's a good idea, although considering you're still using the exact same phrases, the only embarrassing thing is that you've pretty much obviously already made up your mind regardless. More to the point though, was Bon courage supposed to not look for sources lest it embarrass you??? You aren't making sense. I'm definitely considering changing my name to Thomas, for sure though! It seems to be a free pass at ANI. Do you realize that another editor has taken the exactly same position I have? And it didn't bother you a bit. Guess what that editor's name was. I'm too busy for your BS and Bon courage is doing fine. Ta.Elinruby (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You may have forgotten, but I have not asked for any of your time for a week now.[27] Be well.

talk

) 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for page ban

To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for

Pinging all the talk page and NPOVN discussion participants to weigh in: Elinruby, NicolausPrime, Barnards.tar.gz, JoelleJay, Hemiauchenia, Bon courage, LokiTheLiar, Firefangledfeathers, Zanahary, Elemimele, JayBeeEll.

• Support as proposer. Thomas B has been edit warring, repeatedly reverting others to maintain the stripped-down version e created even after being warned against stonewalling by the administrator Firefangledfeathers and in violation of
  WP:BLUDGEONING. This user's POV is clearly too strong to participate in these pages constructively. NicolausPrime (talk
  ) 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I came in here with thoughts of making a similar proposal. This topic is clearly very important to the user for whatever reason, and he has repeatedly said that various editors including Firefangledfeathers [28] who do not ascribe to his point of view do not understand the issues.[29] What he said to me imho reaches the level of a personal attack. (see above) But back to Thomas B: He seems, beyond the issues of tone, to feel a strong need to argue individual points made by other editors one by one in favor of there being nothing sexist at all about calling women "girls" or joking that they present a problem. There seems to be no question that he is impeding quite a reasoned discussion of how best to report this because he feels that it should not be reported at all.[30] [31]Elinruby (https talk) 19:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Puzzled. This strikes me as a bit over-the-top. As I recently said[32], I'm happy to disengage from the whole disussion voluntarily until the page is unprotected. After that, I'm sort of assuming that the consensus is so heavily against me that I can't have any say on the article page, given the constraints of 3RR. I had intended to keep offering criticism and suggestions on the talk page, however. I think banning your critics is a bad idea.
  talk
  ) 20:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

S

• Partial support; I support a temporary page ban but not a permanent one yet. I honestly don't think Thomas B's behavior on talk pages is really that terrible, though it's not great. But his behavior when actually editing the Tim Hunt article has been bright-line edit warring against a clear consensus, in addition to POV pushing. My understanding is that it's very normal for admins to impose temp page bans against users that edit war like this. Loki (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary would be OK. It would cut down on the time sink involved in fixing the issue and maybe pierce his utter certitude that the people he is bludgeoning are either acting in bad faith or simply can't or won't read. Permanent is not in the cards anyway for a relative newbie with no prior blocks. If he picks the behaviour back up then a somewhat longer page block would be usual, I think. If I have that wrong hopefully an admin will tell us Elinruby (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Temporary is OK for me too. NicolausPrime (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is too heavy-handed. I've looked at the various discussions/talk page and his comments are not out of line. If he continues to edit war at the article in question, then a block for edit-warring is the remedy, not trying to ban someone you disagree with. There is a RfC currently underway, and consensus will decide this content dispute. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC is already SNOW and was before it started, as noted by Nemov [33] and Bon courage[34]

  This has gone on for four years, I hear, and Thomas still does not see the problems with his editing, which include:

  • Dismissing RS sources such as the Guardian (!) whose reporting he dislikes:[35][36][37]
  • Disrupting what otherwise seems to have been quite a collegial discussion: [38][39][40]
  • misconstruing policy [41] vs [42] and painting other editors as bullies:I just want to make sure that it's clear, at least in Hunt's own BLP, that he neither thinks ill of women nor was trying to make fun of them during his toast. He was trying to have fun with them.

  He isn't here for disagreeing with people, he is here for violating community norms.

  • Assuming bad faith [43]ff

  His love of reductio ad absurdum isn't great either since it results in subtle but important distortions of what other users actually said:

  • [44][45]
  • [46] and doubling down: [47] and [48] Also [49] He further did this here, saying that I think banning your critics is a bad idea when in fact nobody has proposed a ban, and it would not in any case be for a dispassionate critique of the writing of others. Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Have to say, the "fun with women" comment certainly struck me as ... quite remarkable. Bon courage (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe go outside and have a breath of fresh air, have a cup of tea, go to some flea markets, distance yourself from Wikipedia for a few days, or in the alternative, just ignore him. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Moot Support as the disruption is ongoing. in view of page protection and the RfC, but further edit warring should probably attract a sanction. Bon courage (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC); amended 05:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Bon courage, I wonder, do you still consider this page ban proposal moot given Hemiauchenia's and Firetangledfeather's recent votes below? In case your opinion changed, I would like to request for you to update your vote. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  @NicolausPrime yes, it seems I was over-optimistic. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If there is any sanction to be handed out, it should be to both parties in this content dispute. Having taken the time to look at the edit involved, the so-called quote shouldn't be mentioned for a number of reasons. Firstly, what was actually said was disputed, so putting it in Wikipedia's voice is accepting one version as the true one. That isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Secondly, text is a crap media for conveying nuance, the hosts of the event made clear the remarks were light hearted and jocular and hadn't offended anyone or spoiled the conference. In fact the only person seemingly offended was the journalist who reported them out of context. So those insisting that the quote should be included and edit warring to force it into the article as a
  WP:TROUT. Moving on to the insistence of Thomas this be classed as online shaming. He is actually correct in that this is a view in the literature and Wikipedia should reflect the range of opinions in the literature. He is also correct in suggesting that the BLP article shouldn't be dominated by this controversy and its appropriate to link to the online shaming article. He is also correct in seeking to resolve matters on the noticeboards. Where he is wrong is in edit warring to remove it, though I understand the dilemma of a wikipedia editor being the lone voice. The motion for a topic ban is an example of an inappropriate use of ANI, it seeks to remove one party who has a valid opinion, with the aim of clearing the decks to impose the views of the other side in a content dispute. As such I strongly oppose a topic ban. WCM_email
  08:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as a bit too heavy-handed. I think it's important we are able to debate things in which people have strongly-held views. Of course a "lone voice" must be prepared to give way as consensus turns against them, but lone voices can also make valuable points that the rest of us have missed. It's important to Wikipedia that we don't deter those who adopt a minority viewpoint. Bans have a strong chilling effect, and should be used with extreme caution. In this case, TB's most unhelpful action was starting discussions in multiple locations, worth a smallish trout. The focus on his personal motivations by other editors is equally worthy of a small trout. So, distribute fish as needed, and leave it at that! Elemimele (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal is for a short page block. Not a ban. Ban is his straw man Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Proposal for page ban is literally the name of this sub-section and the proposal presented - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned. A proposal for a "short page block" is an entirely different ballgame. As it is written, it is not a straw man. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  You really want to argue with people about what they are asking for? He is fixated on that one page. It isn't necessary to ban him from other pages, shrug. The people trying to edit the page want to be able to edit the page, is all. Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  No argument, just merely pointing out what the editor's proposal explicitly stated - I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages. That is a specific remedy being "asked for", and the proposer confirms - "these pages" - in his !vote. If it isn't "necessary to ban him from other pages", then the wording of the proposal should probably be changed. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  And just for the record, I would support a short-page block if he continues to bludgeon the talk page, and admin discretion allows for that remedy without any proposals being presented, but as this proposal is written, I don't support that. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am unsure what you mean here. (And for the record I'm also confused by Elinruby's comments as well, for similar reasons.) The usual difference between a

  ban on here is that a ban is a sanction that prohibits editing something, while a block is the technological enforcement of said sanction. As such, a block necessarily implies a ban, which is what is confusing me here: it's possible to page-ban someone without page-blocking them, but not the other way around. Loki (talk

  ) 00:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The way it is worded and proposed is a community endorsed sanction banning the editor from editing Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages, which would mean that the ban could only be lifted after a successful appeal to the community, usually after anywhere from 6 months to a year, from what I've witnessed before in these type of similar community proposed sanctions. Whereas, a block and/or page block would be for a set period of time with an expiration date, unless it is indefinitely. I didn't see a proposal for a set period of time, which is why I interpreted it to mean a community endorsed ban that must be appealed to the community to be lifted. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have seen three and that is what I meant by "short". But come to think of it, an even shorter block/ban would accomplish the goals of

  1. allowing a return to the reverted consensus version
  2. working out any minor differences over wording that may still exist

  I think that requiring an appeal (isn't that for a topic ban?) would just perpetuate the waste of time that this has been.

  Also, I think the other editors in that discussion are capable of working out a wording that satisfies weight + accuracy + BLP without the suggestions and guidance of Thomas. Oh and if I muddied the waters here by using the wrong word then my apologies to all for that. I read "page" as meaning p-block and assumed that other people would also Elinruby (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I see. I think I have done all I can as a fresh opinion here so I am pretty much out of the discussion, but to clarify my apparently badly-stated position: I am under the impression that the scope of the proposal is this one page, Tim Hunt, and associated talk, and that other editors believe it is the entire project and that is why they think it is too heavy-handed. Hth. It sounds like Isaidnoway and I actually agree, given their last statement and that clarification. Elinruby (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  The only remark I saw worthy of a page ban was [50] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood." I would say anyone holding such a fixed view and openly declaring they're not going to listen to counter arguments shouldn't be editing that page. WCM_email 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but does he not claim to be misunderstood? Did he not refer to him female co-workers as "girls"? Did he not say that there was a problem with them? As for a page ban for me -- sure, random cowboy admin is always in the cards. But I think it's pretty obvious ti anyone that cares to look that I've never touched the article and not only didn't plan to do so, but still don't.

  So stop with the aspersions please, as I just told you at the talk page. I'm just an editor who commented on a noticeboard and came to a conclusion that you don't like. This is the third time I have happily gone off to other topics. Bye now. You can have the last word if you like. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Some of the oppose comments have a tone that suggests they think this is a site ban, when the proposal is simply to restrict editing these specific pages. NicolausPrime's reasons for as proposer are well articulated and persuasive, especially the matter of Thomas Basboll's
  talk
  ) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking for myself, I can read, I know it is not a site ban. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I also understand this to be a proposal for a page-specific ban covering

  talk

  ) 21:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• By my count there are 193 signed comments on Talk:Tim Hunt, of which 59 are by Thomas B. I see several places over several days in which they've suggested they'll step back, but it doesn't seem to be happening. My first choice would be for Thomas B to exhibit self-control and for other people to stop engaging with Thomas B in order to faciliate that; but since that seems not to be working, a short-term p-block from the page would be a reasonable second choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayBeeEll (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  In light of Thomas B's continuing failure to disengage, I now unambiguously support a block from the talk-page. The discussion is not being helped by the two or three people who evidently are heavily invested in their own individual conclusions about what happened and what it means; Thomas B has had ample opportunity to make his position known. --JBL (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I had 39 notifications from this page this morning. That's for 10-12 hours , mostly for Thomas or Wee Curry Monster casting aspersions. Revdel may be needed for possible BLP violations with respect to journalists, and yet another editor was told that they aren't competent to edit. That's the news from the front. ThomasB hasn't edited about anything else in months. Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Elinruby, I would like to ask you to reduce your commenting frequency as well, both at Talk:Tim Hunt and here. I assume this discussion made you feel insulted at some point, but from my perspective your comments are starting to appear excessive too, and I would like not to make this matter even more intractable. I feel I already messed it up by not narrowing down the time of the original proposed page ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  While recognizing the bolding seems unnecessary and tonally ill-advised, I would add that I think this behavior from Thomas Basboll—repeated expressions that behavior will change, followed by repeated commissions of behavior—is concerning and strengthens the case for the proposed page ban.

  talk

  ) 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Nod, you have a good point and I had already said I was out of it, but the 39 notifications and level of vituperation seemed remarkable enough for an update. As for the insult, oh well, but they've started on Bon courage now. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I am walking away from this. My viewpoint is that both "sides" in this debate are letting their personal feelings get the better of them, and are attempting to right great wrongs (just two different wrongs). The result has been a debate that's gone off the rails, degenerated into a lot of wikilawyering, poor faith, and walls of text. I don't feel I can interact with other editors in improving this article in the current situation. I believe it will only be solved by a structured debate, forced to focus on the article rather than the editors, and therefore I strongly, strongly recommend

  WP:DRN. Elemimele (talk

  ) 12:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I realise that ANI is not the place to discuss content and I do not intend to do anymore than is necessary to explain the background but it is necessary to help with BLP. 8 years ago the Nobel Prize winning scientist Tim Hunt attended a conference in South Korea. Tim Hunt who is described by his wife as "socially awkward" and "less than wordly" was asked at the last minute to give a toast during lunch. Extremely nervous he gave a 2-3 minute speech that included a self-deprecating joke that was awkward and ill-advised (in that what was said could and was misconstrued). Nevertheless it was well received by the audience; so much so he was asked to deliver a further speech during the closing banquet. A journalist attending the event tweeted a series of tweets denouncing what he'd said as sexist and misogynist, partially quoting the speech out of context and making two false claims. A Twitter storm blew up and whilst flying home his reputation was effectively destroyed and he was forced to resign from several positions. Subsequently the facts of what was said, what wasn't said came out but had little effect on the commentary that continued to be hostile, until the journalist Louise Mensch investigated it doggedly and demonstrated it to be untrue. The accepted view in the literature now is that he was treated unfairly, he is neither sexist nor misogynist but definitely socially awkward and less than wordly.

This is very relevant to the RFC that is currently being run.

1. A loaded question has been made about including a quote of what was said
2. The edits proposed all make the false claim it was his speech that was denounced as sexist, which is untrue, what was denounced as sexist was based on false reporting.

I am extremely concerned by some of the commentary eg [51] "I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood.". This to me indicate a closed mind, a refusal to accept in good faith that there are other possibilities and an unwillingness to listen to evidence that contradicts deeply held beliefs. It seems that some editors have decided Tim Hunt is a sexist misogynist who should be labelled as such on his Wikipedia article. It seems that editors have learned nothing about the damage that a disparaging Wikipedia biography can do and why we have BLP policies. Are we really in the business of pillorying a socially awkward scientist who has been an advocate for women in science? 8 years ago this affair nearly drove the poor man to suicide.

I have to commend Thomas B for his knowledge of the case and the willingness to stick his neck out for our BLP policies, he doesn't deserve the threat of blocks or page bans. To my mind they are misdirected. It seems that 3RR, ANI and various noticeboards are being abused to try and remove an obstacle rather than seek a consensus.

I have no problem with a BLP if it accurately reflects what actually happened but that is not what is happening here. The talk page is toxic, with editors simply not listening or earnestly engaging with the consensus building process. I've given up on trying.

My suggestion is to extend the page lock until editors propose a reasonable summary of what happened that all can agree on via

The idea that anything less than a complete picture should be reported has been imputed to everyone who thinks that this should be discussed as anything but a terrible thing that happened to a good man. I think that failing a page block, dispute resolution is a pretty good idea, since presumably they won't allow all this mud-slinging. Note that given the RFC and previous NPOV discussions, DRN should not be needed to guarantee that opinions can be expressed without generating aspersions, but that is where this is. The clear consensus is being disregarded with cries of BLP, and

WP:PUBLICFIGURE waved off. Elinruby (talk

) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Cathy Young also wrote a piece in Reason (magazine), calling out the irresponsible journalism magnified by social media frenzy, and how the "narrative [about Hunt] has been falling apart". Isaidnoway (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that WCM also mentioned this source earlier, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to add this to the article with an attribution, as Reason is considered a reliable though opinionated source. (I think it would be more effective to raise this on the article's talk page) NicolausPrime (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I did do, the source was immediately denounced, that apparently is enough to ignore it and continue with the same narrative. Therein lies the problem, this is just me being a "misogynist" "circling the wagons to protect a misogynist" with "shitty sources". Those by the way are quotes from the talk page. WCM_email 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think the page protection has stopped the disruption, and I don't see any sign that TB recognizes that his conduct has been problematic. There are people above arguing that a sanction would be moot, but the ongoing conduct makes it clear that is not the case. Above, TB says it'll be ok if he remains unsanctioned because "the constraints of 3RR" will keep him from achieving his preferred version in article-space, and I worry this is a signal that he intends to continue edit warring. The repeated declarations that he'll be stepping back, followed by further bludgeoning and personalization, suggest that TB will continue to worsen the discourse in this dispute. His most recent action is to post a non-serious proposal. He can see no reason that many good-faith editors propose versions he disagrees with, believing they are trying to "vindicate those who originally shamed" Hunt.
  I wonder if those who oppose a pblock would consider a warning, or if they think all this conduct has been just fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I would support a temporary pblock until the RfC is over, but not a permanent ban. The OP was not very clear in their proposal, in my view. And for that matter, a temp pblock for anyone else who is bludgeoning the discussion, regardless of what side they are on about the content. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I take the point and have withdrawn from the talk page until the RfC is over. I don't know if that makes closing easier. But I think I've taken up enough time.

  talk

  ) 15:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, consensus is policy, so if your preferred version of the article doesn't make the cut, there really isn't anything more to discuss, is there? Isaidnoway (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support I was initially on the fence about this because Basboll wasn't the sole cause of disruption in the discussions, but Basboll hasn't stepped back from the discussion like he promised and his behaviour hasn't improved. His self-admitted non serious proposal at
  WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that isn't moving the conversation regarding this issue forward. Hemiauchenia (talk
  ) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm very sorry you got that treatment, Hemi. As best as I can tell, you were uninvolved in the dispute, responded civilly and reasonably to the NPOVN post, then noticed that we were a a standstill and started and RfC. You made a concrete proposal for article content and tweaked it based on TB's concerns, and then you got that uncivil response. It's unwarranted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

  This is a misunderstanding. I produced a version that was obviously slanted in Hunt's direction in order to show well-intentioned people like Hemiauchenia that explanding it with a bunch of (true) details slants it in the direction of Hunt's original accusers (less obviously to many editors here, it seems). Once we get into the weeds, we in effect have to either defend or attack him. That's why I'm not serioulsy proposing the defensive version. I'm proposing (as I have been all along) not to get into the weeds.

  talk

  ) 06:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support I was doing a drive-by looking for the "od" template for a
  WP:OWN. I have no time for it. An article ban is ideal in this instance. There is many other areas the editor can work on. scope_creep^Talk
  13:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support It has become very clear that Basboll has come to the article to
  right great wrongs and edit in defense of the subject's honor. That, combined with their desire to frame this situation as a "shaming campaign" combines to make them ill suited for editing these articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite
  18:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I suspect

righting great wrongs is the motive of some of those editing on the talk page, more concerned with the protagonist in this controversy than the victim. But I am certain that Basboll's motives are to protect wikipedia from a BLP violation not in defence of anyone's honour. WCM_email

08:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol, yet he had already spilled many many pixels at blogspot defending the subject's honor long before this discussion began. To be completely clear, I am sure the man was joking. I also think that jokes like that are a problem. Elinruby (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

He also hasn't edited the talk page for 48 hrs so at this stage any admin action is moot. This is the second time you've alluded to off-wiki activities. You appear to be inviting

WP:OUTING and you should really stop that. WCM_email

10:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither have I until just now, since it became clear I was a convenient red herring. I came over to see if the RFC had closed yet. The prior writings merely underline the inability to be neutral on the topic. But that was evident from the start. Meanwhile, strict as the outing policy may be, if it doesn't cover Grabowski and Klein I sincerely doubt it covers the recognizable style of and nearly-identical statements of someone now editing under their own name; I find that your concern is specious and more likely a threat than an actual concern. The fact that I ignore your behaviour doesn't mean that it isn't noted. Elinruby (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, WCM. I have edited here for many years, and at times been involved in very heated disputes, always in my own name. I've never encountered this sort of behavior before. As a result, I've put in a request to have my username changed. Making editors answer for things they wrote online eight years ago is obviously not helpful to the current debate. Especially in the context of a request to ban the user. Since this is ANI, I had expected an administrator to step in already. Things seem to have changed around here. Not a pleasant atmosphere.

talk

) 11:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Taking a break from editing the article, especially while an ANI discussion is ongoing, does not mean sanctions are unnecessary. And the repeated claims of OUTING are spurious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

what a mess of a situation Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Page Lock

Given the bad tempered nature of the discussion, I would propose that the Page Lock is extended until a consensus text is worked out through

If we went to DRN while an RFC was on, it would be immediately rejected as redundant. This feels to me like a poor attempt at

WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Loki (talk

) 19:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

My take is that we've really made a mess of this and that the page should be locked until a resolution is found.

talk

) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks to me that a couple of editors (one of whom was edit warring before to stop any change) are worried the RfC is running against them, and want to prevent the likely

WP:CONSENSUS being implemented. Let the community do its thing and it will all work out in due course. There is no hurry. Bon courage (talk

) 01:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The RFC is a mess:

1. Its a loaded question that should never be used on an RFC
2. The atmosphere is toxic and outside comment deterred by walls of text
3. Anybody who comments is denounced as a misogynist if they contradict the "consensus" circling the wagon to defend the usual misogyny [52]
4. Editors in particular are disrupting the RFC with commentary on editors not content needlessly personalising matters [53]
5. The tactic above is driving away editors like Emimele and myself
6. The content for which you claim there is a consensus is simply untrue and doesn't give a reasonable summary of the controversy. It is in violation of
   WP:BLPPRIMARY
   .
7. Editors are basing their edit on a personal conviction the subject of the BLP is sexist and a misogynist based on their reading of a quote taken out of context. [54]

It seems based on this comment by Bon courage, editors are more concerned about winning and imposing the content they have decided is "consensus" and simply not listening. Given the conduct DRN is desperately needed. WCM_email 10:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the tactic is evidently to kick up as much process sand as possible in an attempt to derail the RfC (which follows an already extensive discussion at NPOVN). Remember we are

WP:NOTDUMB. Let the RfC run and the consensus will emerge. There's plenty of time. Bon courage (talk

) 13:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Let the RfC run and the consensus will emerge. There's plenty of time. I agree.

talk

) 06:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

nod, my comment about DRN was intended for the event where the waters at the RfC had been sufficiently muddied by the bludgeoning to obscure consensus, as seems possible. In that event a more structured discussion may be necessary for the benefit of those can't quite process that they are misinterpreting policy. But as Loki correctly points out, there is no point in doing that until the RfC runs has its course, and depending on how that goes it may prove unnecessary. I would have thought a page block a week ago would have been better, but apparently the admins do not agree.

And lest I add to the toxicity here, I will now return to thuch me more civil topic of modern-day fascism. Elinruby (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

editors are more concerned about winning and imposing the content they have decided is "consensus" Agree - Isaidnoway (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Request to close this discussion

This thread has gone on for long enough, and as Obama once said, it's "shedding more heat than light" at this point. There's clearly no consensus for any kind of action against Basboll, nor for any other kind of action, and has just devolved into angry arguing. Several threads on the article talk page have also devolved into simiar acrimony, and probably need hatting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, there was never any need for any kind of action against Basboll, they have raised valid concerns but there is a chorus of editors who

WP:DRN. Otherwise I can easily see this ending at arbcom, this needs to be nipped in the bud. WCM_email

18:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you think elevates this to an ArbCom case? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it did, it does warrant intervention by an admin experienced in BLP cases. Whilst the discussion has improved in the last 24 hrs and I'm assuming because of the scrutiny here. However, if the discussions there had continued in the same vein it was definitely headed there. WCM_email 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand what

WP:DRN

is for? It's not just a place to find a mediator for any conflict. It's specifically for resolving small content disputes where no other dispute resolution process is occurring. Neither half of that is true because of the ongoing RFC.

My personal guideline is that an RFC is more appropriate when the dispute is between a few relatively-concrete options, and

WP:DRN right now will do is get it closed immediately because of the existing RFC. Loki (talk

) 22:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that Firetangledfeathers and Hemiauchenia voted just now, I would like to still wait for a moment before closing this and for the closer to check if there's still no consensus or if there's one now. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think Basboll has jumped the shark now and changed my vote accordingly. Bon courage (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd also like to see this closed.

talk

) 11:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm seconding the closure request. It appears there's consensus that imo is now unlikely to change. The sooner this is closed, the less vitriol will continue to spill, and there's still much potential for that. NicolausPrime (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this end for a while, to be honest. Does someone have to post it at

talk

) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It'll just scroll off if people stop commenting. I think it's best if this is dropped now. I'll give @

WP:AE. Bon courage (talk

) 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• I posted a request for closure at
  WP:CR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs
  ) 16:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)