User:JulieMinkai/ANI Hall of Fame

The following content was previously included on my second sandbox.

Discussions are from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and related archives, in no particular order.

A rare example of EEng being serious

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The recent RFC at the Village Pump (moved from ANI) is depicted as a problem with the Reference Desks themselves, rather than a problem that could be solved by "silencing one or the other side". I would argue however that this is exactly the solution, and that it has been for several years at least: ban StuRat (talk · contribs) from the Reference Desks.

Complaints against StuRat date back to 2006, when the Reference Desks were indeed what people accuse them of being now, just a random place where people gave random answers and treated it like a personal forum. Back in those days some editors turned it into a useful Reference Desk with referenced answers, and StuRat was opposed and has been opposed ever since - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat

A second RFC was created along the same lines in 2007, when StuRat was mentioned as particularly disruptive - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat 2

(A 3rd request for comment in 2007 was started and deleted.)

Last year there was a proposal for sanctions against StuRat here on ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive283#Proposed_sanctions_against_StuRat

One recent example of unhelpful answers: [1]

I knew that was utter nonsense, easily solved even with a cursory search of information available on Wikipedia, nevermind outside references. This is just one thing that I happen to be familiar with and StuRat is not; other users can point out where he makes obvious mistakes in their own areas of expertise. (But this is in fact the problem – when he responds to everything, there’s no way to know if he’s being helpful or not.)

If we attempt to discuss this with StuRat, he believes that he is being unfairly attacked. Telling him that he is wrong or doesn’t know what he’s talking about are seen as “incivility”. Calling him out on the Reference Desk is seen as “arguing in front of the OP”, which is apparently a great sin to be avoided. As a result it is impossible to discuss the issue with him in public or in private. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Strong support (see below) a topic ban from the reference desks, unsurprisingly. StuRat's incompetence and refusal to admit that there's any topic in which he's not an expert, coupled with his obsessively single-minded focus on the reference desks (this year alone he has roughly 5000 edits to the RDs and 500 edits to all the rest of Wikipedia combined) are in my opinion the primary driver of the RDs' reputation as a hive of trolls and incompetents. (I honestly don't even need to provide diffs to support this claim; just pick diffs at random from his contribution history at the RDs.) Given that he's had a decade to do so, I think we've long since passed the point of hoping that he will develop competence over time. Bluntly, if things continue on their present course the Reference Desks will be shut down or moved off-wiki in the relatively near future; without their most disruptive element present, they at least have a chance of becoming the valuable resource they ought to be. ‑ Iridescent 18:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Having now seen the comment pointed out below by MarnetteD, changing to "strong support" for a total ban from the RDs at minimum, and I wouldn't be averse to a complete site ban. "Attitude problem" doesn't begin to cover it; if you really see Wikipedia as a "skirmish" in which your task is to defeat "opponents" you're not welcome here, and if you haven't figured this out for yourself after a decade you're never going to. ‑ Iridescent 09:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the reference to "skirmish" is minimally problematic if problematic at all. Sorry but I think you and MarnetteD have got this wrong. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• " the RDs' reputation as a hive of trolls and incompetents." {{cn}}

I've no disagreement as to StuRat. However do the RefDesks really have such a reputation? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, at least among some. While I opposed WP:VPP#RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed?, the comments of those arguing in support of shutting it down altogether as beyond salvation—and the not insignificant additional support for allowing it to continue to exist but kicking it off Wikipedia—shouldn't be dismissed. ‑ Iridescent 18:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The need to "score points" in regard to a deceased Wikipedian here Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Passing of a great contributor just exacerbates the concerns mentioned above. MarnetteD|Talk 18:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised by your saying "score points". You are misreading the comment containing the reference to "skirmish". Human interaction is often adversarial. Honesty and forthrightness with a tinge of sadness is what I read into StuRat's reference to "skirmish". I think StuRat is bemoaning the fact that someone he once argued with is no longer on this plane of existence. I think you've got to cut someone some slack when you encounter a colloquialism in their speech. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Or "perhaps" I'm reading it correctly. You are free to "cut some slack" or put Lipstick on a pig regarding that post. I, and others, are also free to see it as offensive and note it as such in this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I said he "will be missed", it was Adam's response to mine that was an attempt to "score points" by baiting me into an argument, but I refused to engage in an argument there. StuRat (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Offensive, or in poor taste? In poor taste or clumsy? Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Or just accurate. MarnetteD|Talk 17:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
            • No, it is inaccurate. One cannot score points with a deceased person. This is axiomatic. Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
              • I should have mentioned that your pointing out that StuRat treats the R/Ds as "adversarial" and a place to "skirmish" is a good reason that he should be topic banned from posting on them. That is also a good argument for closing them as that is not what they are for. MarnetteD|Talk 18:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• The process of proposing answers, supporting them, and refuting others is necessarily somewhat adversarial. I, unlike many others, do at least attempt to keep it civil. Compare it to a trial, where each side provides evidence, but neither is allowed to insult the other side. That's the best we can hope for. Incidentally, articles are similar, with a somewhat adversarial atmosphere on their talk pages. Again, the best we can hope for is that everybody keeps it civil. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I've gotta say, the complaint rings true. I only drop in at the ref desk once a year if that. About a month ago I popped in at Ref Desk/Mathematics and sure enough, here's StuRat answering a question (one that should probably not have been answered at all) with complete nonsense on something he obviously knows nothing about [2] – obvious to everyone but him, it seems. [3] EEng 18:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've sampled StuRat's other contributions and it's true – it's mostly more of the same. It's amazing how free he feels to just spout off whatever pops into his head (sometimes preceded by "I'm just guessing...", but usually not). A particularly amazing example:

What did the Nazis do to people who were ethnically non-Jewish but who converted to Judaism at some point in their lives? Were they killed immediately, were they forced to do hard labor, or were they allowed to denounce their Jewish religion in exchange for getting their lives spared? I know that ethnicity was the main benchmark that Nazis used to determine Jews, rather than religion. Thus people like Edith Stein and Irene Nemirovsky were killed despite being Christians by religion. Futurist110 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that "Aryan" converts would be treated as "traitors to their race", so just as badly. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt, who the fuck cares what StuRat "suspects"? What in the world use does he think his lame-brained armchair guess is? In a later rehash of this elsewhere he asserts

My answer is probably right. If somebody finds a source which says that the Nazis treated those who converted to Judaism significantly differently, then fine, but, failing that, my answer is a good best guess. As such, it's better than no answer at all.

No, see, it's not. His speculations are an embarrassent to the whole project. EEng 22:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you really need to go back over 5 years to find something I said you disagreed with so strongly ? And that "rehash elsewhere" was on my Talk Page, which is the correct place for this type of thing. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That's what so sad about it. I picked a random complaint from your talk page, and that egregious example was it. The fact is, everywhere I look in your contributions and talk page it's always the same. Elsewhere in the thread you refer to the various times you didn't just make something up, but that doesn't help. "Your Honor, in response to the allegation that I'm a terrible doctor who just gives patients random advice, here's a list of some patients I didn't kill." EEng 03:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that would be a great defense. If a doctor is accused of killing 5 patients, and he only had 10 patients, that's pretty bad. But, if he had 10,000 patients, and only 5 died, that's not so bad, especially if they were very difficult cases to deal with. Ideally, we'd have stats about exactly how many OP's were happy with my answers, but we don't gather such stats, unfortunately. (There is the "thanks" feature added recently, but I doubt if most Ref Desk posters even know it's there, much less how to use it.) And note that most mistakes don't involve "killing the patient", or, in Ref Desk terms, convincing the OP to never use Wikipedia again. A typical doctor's mistake, like writing a prescription nobody can read, would be corrected by others asking for a clarification, and nobody dies. Same at the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Stu - look up QED. -- Begoon 15:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat, To expand on what Begoon's saying, the confusion in your answer is itself evidence of your failure to get what's wrong after all these years. The appropriate analogy is that you're doctor with 10,000 patients; an attempt to sample various patients' records show that in almost every case looked at your advice is incoherent, outside your specialty, and/or downright dangerous; and in response you list 50 patients who received competent care. So no, that's not a good defense. EEng 18:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If it was truly a random sampling, perhaps (but even then you'd need a large enough sample to avoid sampling errors, which is typically somewhere around 1100, not 5). But, I see no reason to think that any of this is random sampling. Take the diffs from 5 years ago involving NAZIs, am I supposed to think that was just a dart thrown at a board ? No, it's not, it's cherry-picking from a very large base, which can be used to support pretty much any position you want. StuRat (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a degree in statistics, so you can save your amateur ideas about sampling, given that you were able to assert (as I linked above) that statistics is a "field where you can just memorize formulas and apply them". The significance of the Nazi episode, as with the here's-some-career-advice-though-I-haven't-the-foggiest-clue-what-I'm-talking-about incident, is that even now you haven't the sense to say, "Yeah, I guess I was way off base with those." No sampling is needed to conclude from that that (a) you don't know your own limitations and (b) you just don't learn. EEng 20:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Was that an invitation to go backwards from the last week and onwards, in order to find similar but more recent issues? That may not have been a wise move. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I share EEng's observations. StuRat tends to talk a lot of crap on the RDs, to our detriment. That's damaging, and a topic ban might prevent it. -- Begoon 19:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support, with slight reluctance. The thread EEng links to just above is a doozy, and it's not the only one. My slight reluctance arises from the opinion that a greater problem is a few individuals whose dominant activity on en:wp is asking inane questions on the ref desks (I'm thinking especially of one registered user and one IP). But the proposed topic ban would at least be a start at improving the SNR at the ref desks. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I really didn't want to end up supporting this, but Iridescent seems to have it just right here. Looking at the recent history of several of the ref desks, I see them swamped by StuRat, answering everything in sight with little competence in the actual subjects of the questions. I also see personal opinions, speculation, off-topic rambling - and even offering nonsensical life advice to someone he doesn't know concerning a subject in which he is clearly not an expert! It's like he's treating the ref desks as his own personal Agony aunt column. I'm sad to say it, but I think the ref desks would be better with not so much StuRat in them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  I just want to add a few thoughts, partly based on comments from User:Baseball Bugs, below. At the village pump discussion on whether to close the ref desks, I commented on what I saw as a similar situation. User:Jayron32 then made the good point that what we're really talking about is moderation, and that's something that's most likely impossible using a community consensus model - a consensus-seeking discussion over the appropriateness of each specific question and answer isn't going to be effective, and I can't see how attempts to reform the way inappropriate contributions are handled as achieving anything other than constant arguing and even edit warring. To get to Bugs' comments, I also strongly dislike the idea of excluding editors from parts of the project - and I'm aware of the fact that many of us here don't contribute at the ref desks and so the view that we shouldn't be telling ref desk people what to do is a reasonable one (though I don't agree with it). The problem I see is that, without the ability to formally moderate the desks, all we have (other than closing the desks) is the very blunt tool of excluding problematic contributors (as identified by community consensus). And as the only real tool we have, I think the only hope for the long-term survival of the ref desks is to use it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  PS: I've updated my support to a strong one, after seeing this update from User:Iridescent and reading the linked interaction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. My opinion has not changed since my WP:AN report from last year (linked by the OP), and this is one positive step we can make towards making the reference desks salvageable. Hopefully the first of many such steps? Tevildo (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. StuRat's contributions to the math reference desk (the only part I frequent) are frequently either wrong or vacuous; misunderstanding the question and providing rambling non-answers after someone else has provided a correct, concise answer with references are common. (Diffs available on request of any administrator.) There's lots of crap behavior on the refdesk, but the sheer volume and consistent poorness of StuRat's contributions makes him an unusually problematic contributor. Also, as several people have noted, he is completely hostile to any attempts to change his behavior. Banning him would certainly be a major improvement. --JBL (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic ban. StuRat does seem compelled to answer every question, no matter how inappropriate, posted at the ref desks, but he's not malicious, and he has the ability to contribute constructively when he puts the effort in. He's certainly not alone in the answer every question/tolerate all nonsense crowd, and when these questions are closed, he's not the only one to insist on re-opening them. I'd much rather see an admin close/delete the nonsense threads that he chooses to entertain than punish him for good-faith if over-eager contributions, which can also be handled on an as necessary ad hoc manner. Nothing more than admonishment and supervision is called for. A topic ban means admins have allowed the matter of nonsense questions to fester too long, and reflect poorly on the overseers as much as the bait-takers. μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Noting Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Straw poll: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς for context. — fortunavelut luna 21:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of your innuendo? You'll notice that the complaint there (closed) was that I remove too much stuff. Does that somehow preclude me from saying admins should be closing nonsense rather than topic banning just a single user who entertains such threads? If anything, the fact that StuRat even voted in favor of banning me from closing nonsense threads (i.e., we are in strong disagreement, not allies supporting each other) would give added weight to my argument that topic banning him is not the proper solution. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, the problem (which does exist, it's not just StuRat here, most editors there include myself are contributing to the problem to some degree) is caused by the way the Ref Desk is set up, which invites forum like discussions. So, what is happening is to be expected. People who have the time to invest a lot of time in the Ref Desk will end up giving their opinions more. If we take a look at the StackExchange website, you see that the format chosen there works better to address this problem. Comments are separated from answers, answers are judged by a voting system and the OP can choose the best answer. Answerers gain reputation points based on the points they get for their answers. What makes the Ref Desk particularly vulnerable to this problem is the fact that there aren't a lot of questions asked compared to the number of contributors. This makes each new question a de-facto new forum topic for the regulars to start posting on. Perhaps we can do one simple thing to improve things, if all Ref Deskers also start to contribute to StackExchange like I've been doing, then that may change the way answers are given in general. At least that's my personal experience. Count Iblis (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems worth noting that so far both oppose votes appear to agree entirely with the substantive analysis of StuRat's behavior, they just think disruptive behavior shouldn't be sanctionable. --JBL (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

yeah, that's kinda where I stand, but I'm starting to wonder ... Stu: being familiar with your hyperactivity at the desks for over ten years now, and being familiar with criticism of your tendency to shoot from the lip for an equal period of time ... I've hardly seen any acknowledgement, let alone change of behavior on your part. At the same time, I've seen you give correct and referenced replies. If you agreed to henceforth think and research before you post (which we cannot check) and include references (which we can), or not post at all when you're unable to do either, I would oppose banning you from the desks. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Look, if someone, say me, is posting something on the Ref Desk that is disruptive, then the first line of action should be to remove those disruptive contributions. If this behavior by me would persist, then it would be a simple straightforward AN/I discussion that would lead to a ban. So, the solution is to intervene on the basis of clear red lines that are based on truly disruptive behavior. Now, StuRat's behavior is, I think, more about him not sticking to informal rules regarding references the other regulars want to stick to, it's not like his behavior is chasing away the OPs who actually ask questions there. The last time I looked as his talk page I saw a huge amount of positive feedback from such OPs. Should StuRat slow a bit down, especially on topics he's not an expert on? Absolutely, but as long as his contributions are not causing problems, and OPs are able to skip what he's writing if they want references and he's not giving any, then why bother? Count Iblis (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the a huge amount of positive feedback on his talkpage, check the timestamps as he keeps anything vaguely complimentary on the page forever. As best I can tell working up from the bottom, the most recent post on his talkpage that isn't a complaint about his conduct was from you in December 2016, and the most recent post that could be construed as positive feedback is from April 2016. And no, the issue isn't his failure to reference, it's that if he doesn't know the answer to a question he just makes stuff up and then becomes aggressive if anyone points out that he's wrong. ‑ Iridescent 21:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite an accurate description of my opinion, JBL. I believe the disruption is at root the allowance of nonsense questions (does this suit make me look overdressed?) and requests for advice (how do I open a business?) that should be referred to lawyers and accountants. If such questions were removed, they wouldn't have answers. And currently when such questions are removed, StuRat is far from the only user who will restore them. If Stu gives an off-topic or non-responsive answer, it can be hatted or maybe even, with consensus, be removed on that basis. But the main problem is IP's and newly created accounts adding bullshit to the desks with no oversight. I thing a pending edit system for IP's and new accounts would go a long way to solving a much bigger problem. If trolls couldn't post without review of their questions, we'd have a lot fewer occasions for this behavior. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

An alternative to removing a question is to give a curt but well thought out reply. "How do I open a business?" Response: In the USA you might start at the U.S. Small Business Association website. A google search for "How do I open a business?" reveals several other approaches. End of story. No drama. No need to even hat the question. This requires a behavioral change in those fielding questions at the Reference desks. We should take the blabber out of Reference desk threads. We are not Quora. Our Reference desks are an active extension of the encyclopedia. We should be thinking of ourselves that way. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support and I look forward to seeing a few other RD regulars removed too as there is far too much social media chit-chat, original thought, and nothing like a real reference desk where responses to questions should always contain links to Wikipedia articles and/or reliable third-party sources. The ref desks have long been a refuge for users who wish to just give opinion, precisely opposite to what an encyclopedia should be doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support If the refdesks were a separate project, it would be fine for them to adopt whatever procedures work. However, as things stand there are too many refdesk enthusiasts for any reform to be possible and removing particularly troublesome contributors is the only solution available. Wikipedia is not the place to pursue liberty or to express the human right of spouting an opinion for every occasion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, as User:The Rambling Man correctly points out, answers on the refdesk should be directly related to Wikipedia, and supported by sources or at the least other WP articles. I've just done a spot check of some of StuRat's contribs and while what he says isn't totally unreasonable, most of it is personal opinion that has no real value in building this project. That being said, removing this one editor shouldn't stop us from removing other editors that may be problematic at the reference desk. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC).
• Survey continues at "Resume !voting", below.

StuRat's response

1) You start !voting before I even have a chance to make a statement ? Is this proper procedure ? Or are you just ignoring all rules ?

2) My account statistics: [4]: First edit: 2005-08-05 (so I've been here over 12 years) Live edits: 87,634 (of which something like 70,000 are Ref Desk edits)

My point is, with this many edits, a few are bound to contain mistakes. When I spot them, I try to fix them (I delete them if nobody has yet responded to them or strike them out and post the correction if they have). However, I'm sure those who want me blocked will cherry-pick my 12 years of contributions to find what they consider my worst answers. To counter that, here's a few of my good answers:

Science Math Computers and Electronics Miscellaneous Humanities Language Entertainment (Note that I provide the entire Q and all answers, not just a single diff, to avoid having one edit be taken out of context, like if the word "not" is initially missed, then added a second later. I wish everyone would do the same.)

As you see, those cover a fairly narrow range in time, as I only collected a list of my good answers for a short time, or this list would be far longer.

3) I believe in a collaborative approach to answering Ref Desk Q's. That is, one response need not be comprehensive. One person may ask for a clarification of the Q, another may suggest a few possible answers, others may look up sources to support or disqualify those answers, etc. If you disagree with a particular answer, say why, and offer sources to support your view, remaining civil at all times. In the end, we often get to the correct answer, with good refs. I may contribute at any of these steps, depending on the Q. BTW, I often contribute refs which others have missed, such as here: [5].

4) I do, however, believe that attacking other editors does not belong on the Ref Desk. Take that the the Ref Desk talk page or to the editor's talk page. That doesn't help to answer the Q in any way. And, civility is important, although I've noticed a great deal of incivility is tolerated, as long as it comes from Admins, but normal users can be blocked for it. So, leave the swearing and insults at home. StuRat (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Howdy StuRat. I peaked at your editing pie chart & my goodness, you need to spend way more time on 'main space' editing. Too much participation in any forms of discussions on Wikipedia, is not a good thing. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The pie chart shouldn't matter. He has more mainspace edits than the vast majority of users, and plenty of people contribute to the project in ways that don't happen in mainspace. The issue is treating the Reference Desk like Yahoo Answers, which is an issue with StuRat on the Reference Desk rather than StuRat on Wikipedia... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

" a few are bound to contain mistakes." - so show us the good stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I did, under item 2. Are you actually going to look at any of them ? StuRat (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Resume !voting

• Oppose my block, obviously, for the reasons stated, or am I not allowed to !vote ? StuRat (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The crux of the problem is not individual editors. The Reference desks should be thought of as an active extension of the encyclopedia. If such a standard were truly applied many more editors would fall short of it. We have not articulated and broadly promulgated guidelines on how questions are to be fielded on our Reference desks aside from a few suggestions. Doing that would be the first order of business, before we go willy-nilly topic-banning editors. StuRat edits in good faith when he fields questions on the Reference desk and some of his responses display great knowledgeability of a topic. And he edits without a trace of meanness. Bus stop (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Um, there are Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - My rationale for opposing: 1) StuRat's main interest on en-Wikipedia appears to be the refdesks. If their behavior is so problematic, a total block+ban would be appropriate. I suppose that some could suggest a NOTHERE (to build the encyclopedia) ban, that'd be another discussion. 2) The reference desks are traditionally and de-facto more free than other talk pages and articles. Other comments can correct wrong answers or expand on them and some may be hatted by other editors. 3) I evaluated some of StuRat's comments as intelligent and informative, others were more speculative or unnecessary. People have opinions and make mistakes. 4) Other regulars display similar behavior. Attempting to reform the refdesks may be more constructive than to ban select editors. Clear policy-based reasons could then apply if effecting reverts, hattings or bans. On the other hand, it's possible that an overly rigid environment would ruin the welcoming atmosphere of the desks (for posting requests and/or answering them)... In any case, I don't find that StuRat's presence makes it any harder to ask questions or post answers. —PaleoNeonate – 03:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't hat topics at the RefDesk. The number of wrong and pointless responses from StuRat is the problem here. Others are to blame for their own actions and we can deal with them as required. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as nothing but the periodic scapegoating that certain ref desk editors attempt. I've had some issues with StuRat's approach, but I take those issues to his talk page. Too many editors feel free to attack StuRat in front of the OP's, and that is not kosher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to see this as a first step to cleaning up the reference desk yuk yuk comedy club. Let's just "scapegoat" each and every funster out the door, starting with this one, and see what we have left. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support--Per TRM and Iridescent.And as Lankiveil says, removing this one editor shouldn't stop us from removing other editors who are problematic at the reference desk.Let the reformation begin with his t-ban!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Once you've gotten rid of anybody who's not in the clique, who will you go after then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Baseball Bugs:--Are you willing to clarify what you exactly refer to by the use of the word clique?Regards:)And, I am not going after anybody.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
      • The ones who have decided that they own the ref desks. They attack other editors in front of the OP and condemn attempts to rein in BLP violations and the giving out of professional advice. And every few months, they try to get somebody they don't like banned. This is one of those times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't believe any-body who is supporting here believes themselves to be the owner of Ref-Desk.This thread is purely about StuRat's frequently-incompetent-mass-answering at RefDesks.And, please don't post random accusations without corresponding diffs.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
          • That's funny. Well, let's start with Kudpung's attack on StuRat in front of the OP, and your defense of that attack.[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Lovely! Any prize(s) for being the owner of the ref-desk? Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
              • Yes. As a ref desk owner, you get to violate the rules. Tell me what Kudpung's shot at StuRat has to do with answering the OP's question. Wait, I'll tell you: Nothing. So how does he get away with it? Because his name isn't StuRat. That's how. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, you don't even have the common decency to ping me when you are PA'ing me behind my back. So you finally admit that as a ref desk owner you are entitled to violate the rules. That's really all we need to know.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just assumed you had this on your watch list - and the last time I pinged someone I got yelled at for it. No, I do not own the ref desks. I am not part of the clique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No one owns the Reference Desk and there is no clique, but this reflexive assumption that you are being oppressed by a devious cabal is part of the problem. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No one is oppressing me in particular. But the clique raises this red flag every few months, in an attempt to get rid of users they don't like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I've never looked at the RefDesk until this thread and yet you User:BaseballBugs have turned to making false statements about how I was allegedly almost site banned in retaliation for me suggesting you are part of the problem. This is not a war by one group of users against another - it is various disinterested users who have looked at the policy violating mess a small group of users have created at the refdesk. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Support, per Boing! said Zebedee and others. Before I voted on the RfC, I went to the RD because I had I never been there before. Frankly I was appalled with what I found. Apart from a few intelligent answers from a few genuine subject specialists - that also were not to appropriate questions either - what stood out more than anything else were Stu Rat's incessant chiming in wherever he could just to get his name on the thread. His pie chart clearly demonstrates that he has very little interest in building this encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support I was looking into the RefDesk futher after seeing the RFC on closing it when I observed StuRat’s random advice and opinions. I see this is a long term problem, and that he also abuses the refdesk to ask for shopping advice [7]. The fact other editors abuse the ref desk as a forum is not a valid excuse to not deal with a specific user that prolifically posts on topics they know nothing about. Based on the ownership behavior immediately above, we should look at User:Baseball Bugs’s for the next topic ban. Legacypac (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, you've linked to an indefinitely blocked impersonator, giving the impression that User:Baseball Bugs has been banned, when it is the troll User:Baseball Bug that is banned. Please correct this. μηδείς (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you. I’ve fixed the link Legacypac (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• In fairness, I think (Baseball Bugs, correct me if I'm wrong) that what Bugs is saying is that those supporting a ban on StuRat are trying to take ownership of the ref desk, not that he's the owner of the RD so should have final say over to whom and when the rules apply, although I agree the wording is ambiguous. Assuming the former is what was meant, that's a legitimate point of view ("why do all these outsiders think they know better about how to solve the problems than someone like me who's spent a lot of time there and is more familiar with it?"), even if it's a view with which I disagree in this case. ‑ Iridescent 10:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know what Legacypac is talking about, although he himself is demonstrating some ownership just within the last hour or two: This, [8] for one; and also this, [9] which was reverted by an admin. I don't own the ref desks by any stretch. I am not part of the clique. When the subject of whether to close the ref desks came up, I gave it a "soft support" on the theory that closing it down would at least remove the recurring scapegoating that goes on there (and here too, at present). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I woudn't personally use the fact that they were "closed by an admin" as particularly proof-laden; it was a poor series of reverts, and rather embarassing, frankly, from one with advanced permissions. But I get your general drift. — fortunavelut luna 12:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is par for the course. What starts as a small request (get Medeis to stop closing Ref Desk threads for reasons like "this doesn't need to be archived"), spins completely out of control into attempts to close down the entire Ref Desk, and now ban particular users. Asking Admins for help is like summoning a Golem, they end up just trying to destroy everything. This has happened before. And the reason to mention that it was reverted by an Admin is that these reverts will likely stand, while if a normal user dared to revert him, they might get blocked for it. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Mainly per Boing! and Iredescent, whose collective reasoning I find wholly convincing. I note too that the opposes are more opposing action against the ref desks as a whole rather than a specific editor; they are not therefore opposing the actual question. StuRat is unfortunately- but clearly- as an editor, one the RefDesks will find themselves the better off without. There are of course others, of a similar vintage- some of whom have commented in these proceedings- and I have no doubt that similar concerns will be raised regarding them in the future. That way, perhaps the desks will remain open and actually contribute to the encyclopaedia. Iridecnt, I think you are correct in your reading of BB's comment- to those remarks I find myself tempted to answer that if those who have been there such a long time haven't yet managed to solve the issues, then they probably never will! — fortunavelut luna 11:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Too many problems. Paul August ☎ 12:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Many people have tried many times to reason with StuRat to stop shooting from the hip to answer as many questions as possible, but to no avail, and this is where things are now. Sadly, I think that StuRat means well and I don't doubt that there are some people he has helped, but he's shown no interest in changing his guesswork approach to the desks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - It's time to clean up the reference desk. I took a quick, random spin through some of StuRat's edit history and saw lots of personal opinions offered to trivia questions, which might be an entertaining pursuit but which certainly doesn't help build an encyclopedia. I also found THIS, in which when someone attempted to remove a thread started by a troll about whether someone can "burn their own fluff with a blowtorch." StuRat reinstalled the garbage with a call for a topic ban for the remover. Well, the shoe's on the other foot now. Let's get this guy out of that section as a first step to cleaning up the shop for what it is supposed to be for — a venue for legitimate questions to be asked and factually answered. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN as per above. A reasonable approach to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, and necessary as no lesser remedy is likely to be effective. Procedurally, indef with a 6 month wait before an appeal sounds right. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBAN. From the diffs below and the comments here, it is clear that StuRat has exhausted the community's patience over many years. Ultimately, his approach to this project and RD suggests that he's WP:NOTHERE, but I'd prefer to give him rope. No reason to ban him from non-RD pages unless he causes disruption there. agtx 18:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support temporary ban from the refdesks. One of the reasons StuRat continues to disrupt the RefDesks with wild guessing and providing factually incorrect information is that the community as a whole has never told him that he can’t. Many editors have asked him many times to stop, but he also has his supporters. If the community as a whole finally decides that StuRat needs to reform his RefDesk behavior, he should be given the opportunity to do so.

It should be clear to anyone looking at StuRat’s talk page that there is a problem, but often a problem is brought (inappropriately) to StuRat’s attention in RefDesk mainspace rather than on his talk page, and often his bad answers are simply ignored, so one must go to the RefDesk to really appreciate the scale of the problem. Here’s a recent example of a wild guess that turned out to be wrong [10]. See the hatted portion of full thread for the disruption that it caused.

While many editors have expressed dismay at StuRat’s wild guessing and incorrect answers, few point out exactly which guidelines are being violated. (To their credit, the RefDesk regulars do not seem to be a particularly litigious bunch, or maybe I just don’t frequent the right drama boards). From the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines: “We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork.” Everyone is entitled to get an answer wrong once in a while, and even the occasional speculation can be useful. StuRat takes a more extreme position and actively defends his right to throw out wild guesses. Amongst the myriad complaints about StuRat’s RefDesk behavior, try to find him acknowledging that he has some responsibility for the quality of his own answers.

This is already too long to read. More diffs on request.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions for any way to get StuRat to understand what just about everyone here is telling him and to get some commitment to change his ways, I'd love to hear it (and if I thought it was realistic, I'd support it enthusiastically). But every response I've seen so far from him is "I'm right, you're all wrong". You can't get someone to change their ways if they won't even consider that they might be doing something badly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much to add. I agree that StuRat's inability to admit that he is doing anything wrong is a huge problem. But sometimes people can do what they have to do, even if they don't like it. I don't think anything less than a temporary TBAN will get him to reform, and it will probably take a long one. But as far as I know, in StuRat's decade of problematic behavior at the RefDesk, this obvious solution has never been applied. This is largely due to StuRat's resistance to even the suggestion that a change is needed, but I think the TBAN does need to be given an opportunity to work the first time it is tried.--Wikimedes (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I recognise the problem, for sure. However the ref desks are clearly close to StuRat's heart and I'm unwilling to call for a topic ban on such as yet. Instead I'd like to see some sort of formal advice to StuRat, with their agreement, that they would only respond appropriately to refdesk questions, adding material where they can contribute positively with some degree of accuracy, and/or where they can be this by reliance on external material (either WP or off WP). No specific restriction on asking questions.

If that doesn't work, revisit the issue here after a while, and I'l support a TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• OK, on the basis of the section and my comment below, I think this is unworkable and so I'd now support a TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• • Comment I would support such a proposal (a form of editing restriction rather than an outright TBAN), provided it was clear that any significant violation would lead swiftly to a TBAN without having to go through this sort of discussion again, and, more importantly, that StuRat acknowledges his behaviour is unacceptable. I don't see him doing that in his current contributions to the discussion, or any previous discussions of the same issue. Tevildo (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and StuRat can appeal after six months. If he shows that he has been answering questions appropriately with references at other venues then this would go a long way in convincing the community that he has reformed and could return to the RefDesks without returning to the old behavior. Other venues where he could help include the teahouse, the resource exchange (great place to supply answers that have been looked up) or the help desk if he stays focused on helpful answers without excess commentary. There are plenty of other places to help and folks here might be willing to provide more suggestions. Some have called for the RefDesks to be shut down and others have opposed them but even they call for reform. If the RefDesks mean that much to him, he should be willing to step away from it for its own best interests. In six months time, if there are still problems at the RefDesks no one will be able to blame him for those.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• For those keeping score at home: so far there are 0 people who have stepped forward to defend StuRat's edits as a net positive for Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To do this right, you'd need to look at all of StuRat's edits for some interval, such as the last few weeks. Then look at the edits of other users for the same interval. Then see what percentage of each user's edits actually help lead the OP to the right answer, assuming there is a right answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I am of much the same opinion as Andy Dingley. I will note that sturat does have quite a collection of barnstars and thankyous for answering questions, so certainly he gets a good answer in there sometimes. However there are also several barnstars for humor. So it would be good if the large number of unhelpful answers are avoided, and answers are only given where he really has a good answer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  As I suggested to someone else, if you have any practical suggestions for how to actually get him to avoid all the unhelpful answers and only reply when he has a good answer, let's hear them - I'll support you if you can come up with something feasible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban: I believe in a collaborative approach to answering Ref Desk Q's (StuRat, above). That means you acknowledge the existence of a Ref Desk community. Nobody can remain a member of any community with impunity from its norms, protocols, procedures, policies, practices, laws or guidelines. Yet your behaviour time and time again puts you in the spotlight of criticism. Yet you always defend yourself.
  I have never seen you say: Hmm, maybe you guys actually have a point. Maybe I could take a look at my modus operandi and see where I could modify it, so that I won't forever be having to defend myself from the complaints of my colleagues.
  If all the critics don't actually have a point, what are their criticisms actually all about? Personal dislike of you? someone they've never met and will probably never meet? Hardly. What else could it be? You tell me.
  But then, maybe you like being in the spotlight of criticism. Some people are like that. They have a deficit need, and will accept - nay, go out of their way to attract - any attention, no matter how adverse, as long as the focus is on them. To prolong the spotlight, they will argue for as long as there is breath in their body, never giving an inch. I suspect that this is the case with you. But whether that's the case or not, one thing is sure: You have to change. If a topic ban is what it takes to get you to see this, then so be it. I don't believe I've ever voted to ban anyone from Wikipedia before. There's a first time for everything, I guess. I do this reluctantly, because you do often play by the rules. But a murderer cannot be excused from the weight of the law by arguing they've been kind to countless little old ladies. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I do take advice from others, as I just did here, striking my comments from Baseball Bugs' talk page: [11]. Note that the editor I took the advice from was actually civil, making it far easier to listen. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yet you always defend yourself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• When you're attacked, do you defend yourself? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Not when I realize I'm in the wrong. EEng 07:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• The form of defence I'm talking about is complete denial. If 50 editors told me that over a period of 10 or more years I have consistently violated the acceptable practices of the Ref Desk, my response would not be "I'm the only one in step". That is, effectively, StuRat's response to all such claims. We never get to first base with him. We never hear from him that there are things he needs to take responsibility for. He will happily pull out numerous examples of where he has done something other than what is being claimed about him, but that still leaves the multiple cases where the claims are accurate, yet he never accepts any criticism of his behaviour in relation to those instances. It's "I'm right when I don't do X, and I'm right when I do do X". The remainder of the Ref Desk community has a different view.-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• This sort of argy-bargy, where someone points out in some detail exactly, precisely what is wrong with Stu's posts, and receives a tsunami of denial-based arguments in response from him, has been going on for at least a decade. Here is an exchange from 2012 that shows nothing has changed since then. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support - RD responders should not draw primarily from personal experience and knowledge. You won't find those words in the RD guidelines, but they clearly can be inferred from those guidelines, the massive amount of discussion over the years, and common sense (i.e. personal "knowledge" is too often incorrect). This has been stated countless times, but some editors either can't grasp the concept or don't care about it for reasons I won't speculate on here. StuRat debatably has been the most "prolific" in that regard (I'm not going to debate that), and his responses here demonstrate that he still can't grasp the concept or doesn't care about it for reasons I won't speculate on here. I stayed out of this until I saw that. This TBAN is an important first step toward reforming the desks that the community, at WP:VPP, has decided we must keep and reform. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Mandruss the guidelines may not have those exact words, but they do have "Do not offer answers on topics on which you are not qualified. If you are unfamiliar with a topic, it's recommended to stay out of the discussion, unless you are posting directly factual information such as link to a Reliable source confirming details previously posted by others. Opinions should generally be avoided unless justified in response to sourced material, or quoted (with appropriate citation) from them". They also have "Our standards on verifiability, neutral point of view, or no original research should be kept in mind on the Reference Desk, as well as the rest of the project … answers should be verifiable, that is, to the extent the questioner wishes to verify that the answer is not fabricated, there should exist a reliable source (or sources) that would give the same answer". If you look back to when those guidelines were written, you'll see StuRat edit-warring to try to remove the prohibition on personal speculation and the requirement for answers to be based on referenced sources (see here for one of many examples), so he can hardly claim he's unaware of what the guidelines say. ‑ Iridescent 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, you had to go back 10 years to find those. I deny your characterization of that as edit-warring. We were all modifying the guidelines at that time, as we were developing them. StuRat (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• StuRat demonstrates the uselessness of "Do not offer answers on topics on which you are not qualified", which presumes that one always knows whether they are "qualified" on a certain topic. "Opinions should generally be avoided" similarly presumes that one can distinguish between their opinions and fact (in my opinion, such a person is in the minority among the general population). But we are in agreement that the words "clearly can be inferred", and that StuRat should have long ago inferred them. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban preventing StuRat from participating at RefDesk. As well, the RefDesk procedures should be changed so that throwaway (non-)answers can be suppressed in some fashion, for instance by voting positively on the good answers. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Iridescent, TRM, Boing! etc and StuRat's very behaviour in this thread. I have no idea how many flying insects may have died as I have researched this issue but I may have been responsible for a few as I've sat here open-mouthed with amazement. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Carrite and the diff provided. If you can't tell that a discussion about lighting up your own flatulence, or any other bodily excretions/accumulations, isn't the purpose of an encyclopaedia (or a refdesk), then you have absolutely no business being here (or there). It's a shame the RfC to get rid of the RefDesks isn't going to pass. I am aware that not everything contributes to the construction of the encyclopaedia, ahem, we are here after all. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - Since it is apparently the consensus of the Wikipedia community that we need Reference Desks, as the RFC to close them down is failing, removing one editor who responds too often when the whole Reference Desk concept doesn't work is an inadequate answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: Of course it's inadequate; I don't think anybody has said StuRat is the only problem with RD, or even the only editor who misuses the desks in that way. Just try to imagine the "fix all RD problems" package proposal. Better yet, just try to put one together. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Now perhaps some editors who strongly opposed closing the Reference Desks see why some editors favor closing them down. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Baby ——— Bathwater. Carrite (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - The baby is deformed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Diffs are concerning to say the least. The behavior around the ref desks (pointless speculation, disparaging comments, etc.) seem rather out of place when put into the context of the rest of the wiki and the policies which apply to them. Stikkyy t/c 04:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Although I supported closing the reference desks, there is no consensus for that. It is quite clear, though, that there is widespread concern about how the reference desks have been run, and a desire for reform if they are to be kept. A key aspect of reform, in my opinion, is removing all of the highly problematic "regulars" from the reference desks. This discussion has shown a problematic and troubling pattern of behavior from StuRat going back a decade. I actually like the guy and find some of his speculations amusing and thought provoking. But Wikipedia does not need and should not allow speculation. StuRat just doesn't get this, so I have concluded that he should be topic banned from the reference desks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose with reservations I don't want Stu to take this as thinking that I approve of his style on the refdesks in general. As others have noted, he seems to feel compelled to answer almost any question, whether he has anything worthwhile to say about it or not. This can be really pretty annoying. He actually does know quite a lot about a wide range of topics, and if he would limit himself to answering only questions where he does have special expertise, I think he would still get to contribute a fair amount, and would be a genuine asset. It's his signal/noise ratio that's way too low. But that's pretty squishy grounds for a topic ban. --Trovatore (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support at this point, because User:StuRat is just digging himself a hole. I have seen this too many times, where a user was brought to a drama board and made the case against themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That's why Galileo was banned, he kept digging when the Church said he was wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support StuRat's behavior in this very thread tells the whole story. EEng 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, with no opinion about the duration between a month and indef, as a way to (1) prevent immediate problems and (2) allow constructive editing of WP. If nothing else, for the exchange with yours truly at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 April 13#Laser pointer reflected light harmful to eyes in close proximity.3F that starts with Maybe you can tape some red plastic sheets to your safety goggle to reduce the amount of red getting through, where it is no exaggeration to say that their advice could get someone blinded.

Their suggestion was based on armchair speculation, which is not great, but is on par for lower half of RefDesk responses; it turned out that it was a very dangerous course to follow, but that cannot be known beforehand (of course, it is still a problem if done repeatedly, but again this can be passed off as "RefDesk tradition" though it is not). The big problem in that exchange is that when told the suggestion was inefficient, dangerous, and that laser safety was a dangerous subject to make uninformed suggestions on, they doubled down on their position.If you know a thing about laser safety, you know who was in the right in that exchange; and if you do not, put yourself in StuRat's shoes when being told that your advice was disastrous with an explanation and links: what would be your reaction? If they cannot admit they did something not only stupid but dangerous, they will keep being a danger to people who ask questions on the RefDesk. This is orders of magnitude worse than just being unpleasant background noise or unhelpful cluttering of the page. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Below, I had offered some meh support for StuRat's proposal, in the belief that their drafting of the proposal showed a welcome though late illumination in an editor whose ability to admit mistakes was very low. I see from every other answer since that it is not actually the case, and feel mildly stupid/naive for having assumed this was a real turning point no matter how late. Hence I reaffirm my support for a TBan. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Holy shit. I just read the "advice" that StuRat posted in Tigraan's link above. As someone who has spent over 15 years working with lasers, especially high power ones and 6 of them spent with pulsed lasers with average powers between 20 and 100W, 3 years as a laser safety officer StuRat's responses made me shudder and would have had me immediately revoking his access to all of the labs that I managed. I would also like to state that quite a few of the answers in that thread are actually plain wrong. If this is characteristic of his responses on the Ref Desk, then I support the topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing to Strong support after reading Jack of Oz's diff. Also, following the concerns that I voiced in my vote above and after an anon messaged me, I've taken the liberty of hatting the discussion in the archive. Blackmane (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban especially in the light (no pun intended) of the utter irresponsibility of StuRat's 'advice' on laser safety, but mainly for so many diffs others have presented showing their RefDesk responses are mostly WP:OPINION and Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. These inputs would NEVER be accepted in any Wikipedia article, yet so much boyish/laddish chit-chat on the RefDesk on matters of serious concern ought to worry everyone who cares for the reputation of Wikipedia. Propose indefinite topic ban, or at least until such time as the Reference Desk is itself reviewed by ArbComm and run akin to all other Wiki Projects, with proper checks, balances and tests of competency and appropriate support and administrative sanctions. That wouldn't be bureaucracy - just common sense. Maybe then StuRat could be a useful contributor once more. Nick Moyes (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. StuRat's presence at the refdesks has been ten years of aggressively defending his entitlement to fill the desks with unprincipled, ignorant and unhelpful ramblings. Enough is enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a co-initiator of the 2006 and 2007 attempts to fix the refdesks, 10 years is long enough. Hipocrite (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Indefinite, with permission to appeal after 1 year. Enough is enough. Based on the links provided, StuRat's presence in the ref desks is not a net positive. Neutrality^talk 01:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support Ten years of this. Ten. Years. There are times when WP's desire to be forgiving and assume the best of editors is stretched well beyond reasonable limits, and this is one. Grandpallama (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Diffs linked to in this discussion show that competency, providing sources, and avoiding wild speculation has been a longstanding issue with StuRat's contributions the Ref Desks. If StuRat can show that he can contribute and be a net positive to Wikipedia off the RDs, then an appeal could be successful in the future (e.g. 6 months, a year, etc.). A ban would also allow us to assess the RDs without StuRat, to see if they would still need change.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Points of Order

1. Where are the diffs? This discussion was started with links to previous discussions, but not a single diff pointing to disruptive behavior. Afterwards, we get a link to a 5+ year-old comment offering speculation about Nazi treatment of converts to Judaism which StuRat openly admits is speculation (i.e., he doesn't make a bad-faith claim as if it were fact) and a perhaps tastelessly worded but still admiring comment about a deceased editor. There's even a link giving the appearance of evidence offered if you don't follow the link to see it is to the same editor's previous comment. This is hardly conclusive evidence of disruption.
2. Define "disruption". We have a score of assertions above calling StuRat disruptive. Disruption is normally taken to mean edit-warring, vandalism, changing or deleting other's comments in bad faith, deliberately posting off topic, false, or inflammatory comments. StuRat has been accused of none of this.
3. RfC? This is not being conducted as a proper RfC. If this is not a kangaroo court (and plenty of people above have admitted they have their knives out) we should start over with a properly formulated RfC with notifications and so forth, not just a piling on of editors who state their agreement with the opening, not-supported-by-diff assertion that StuRat is disruptive.

μηδείς (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Err. No-one says it is a RfC. Some previous RfCs have been mentioned, but this appears to be an ordinary, run-off-the mill report to AN/I in which the usual procedure is report>bollocking>sanction. Which may or may not be the outcome here I hasten to add. Afterall, since when did we prejudge AN/I reports. Hope this helps! — fortunavelut luna 15:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If this is just a normal case, then where are the recent warnings, and where is the escalating series of blocks? What we are looking at here are calls for an indefinite topic ban without any intermediate steps. Again, we need the diffs of the disruption, and to follow the forms, not a pile-on with knives drawn. μηδείς (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a normal case, rather, a normal report. I.e., not a RfC. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 16:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy requirements for there to be any recent warnings or escalating blocks before the community is allowed to discuss a proposal for a topic ban - but the OP did list some previous discussions of the alleged disruption. Also, there actually are some diffs offered in various places here, but the general consensus so far seems to be that so many of StuRat's ref desk responses are problematic that there's no need to list them separately. Having said that, I'll have a look through his recent ref desk posts and I'll find some for you - I'll post them below, shortly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that you (Medeis) are actually unaware of his issues, but for the benefit of the tape here's a bunch of diffs of him spouting shit of various kinds or talking purely to hear his own voice, taken from dip-sampling his contributions over a randomly-chosen two day period: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. (All from 10–11 October; chosen to be recent enough to demonstrate that this is a current issue, but prior to the recent ANI and VPP threads in case those were either causing him to be on best behavior or to double down on his disruption in order to try to prove some kind of point.) You'll get roughly the same signal-to-noise ratio from his contributions over any random period over the past decade. This isn't a case of a single, unambiguously terrible comment that demands immediate action; this is about the cumulative impact of what's literally a decade of inappropriate comments, incorrect answers, and generally treating Wikipedia as his personal blog. ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not in any way claim to be unaware of Stu's infuriating, juvenile, POV-laden, obsessive behavior, Iridescent; only to be of the opinion that those raising charges have to provide the evidence.

That being said, with this diff reverting @Legacypac:'s archival of a WP:NOTAHOWTO violating thread, I am disinclined to defend Stu any further. I still oppose an outright topic ban, but some sort of shot across the bow is called for.

Yet the underlying problem remains the inaction by admins and the failure to delete and salt this trolling by IP and newbie SPI's. μηδείς (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You can't just provide diffs, you need to explain exactly what Wikipedia policy each of those violates. Some were jokes, do you oppose all humor on Wikipedia talk pages, or just all humor on the Ref Desk ? Is there a Wikipedia policy which supports this ? (I believe we did decide to wait for serious answers first, before adding jokes.) Most were serious answers. For example, one person wanted to update Wikipedia to add the term "nose blindness" to it, since they saw that term used in TV ads. I explained why we can't allow TV advertisers to define the names of Wikipedia articles, with examples. What policy does this violate ? I could go on to defend the rest of those diffs, if I knew what you were actually complaining about in each case. StuRat (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

And that answer illustrates your lack of self-awareness better than any diff ever could. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an RFC, it is an AN/I complaint. A righteous one. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

An attempt to WP:CANVASS has been posted here. The wording is non-neutral. That could be changed of course. MarnetteD|Talk 17:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have changed it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Boing! said Zebedee. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't an attempt at canvassing, I didn't say "please !vote for me". It was a notification, and I welcomed them to !vote either way. And why exactly didn't you people think the Ref Desk should be notified, anyway ? StuRat (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If after 12 years you still cannot see why that message was inappropriate, the likelihood is that you should not be editing anywhere on WP, not merely facing a topic ban. - Sitush (talk)

Diffs? try this thread: WP:Reference desk/Science#Hydraulic motors Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, you don't say what you found wrong with it, and I said I agreed with you that hydraulic cars are not going to happen. Do you disagree that one of the disadvantages of hydraulics is that they are temperature sensitive, so commonly require a warm up period prior to use ? StuRat (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is insane. You seem completely oblivious to what people are telling you, and just keep digging and digging and digging. EEng 19:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not insane because there are two separate issues when examples like that are raised. Normally at AN/I the focus is on behavioral issues, but the problem now is that the examples are StuRat's answers to RefDesk questions and that brings in the baggages about whether he was correct to answer that question in the way he did, you can't just say that he was wrong. The argument that a someone is wrong because many people say so doesn't hold water in science. So, the core problem with this whole AN/I case is that we're not dealing with the usual behavioral case like someone throwing insults all the time, or reverting too often etc.. Count Iblis (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. One cannot fault someone for responding with great frequency if there is a high level of quality in the responses overall. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Luckily this hypothetical situation is not relevant to the present case. --JBL (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Some examples and diffs

As some people have asked for specific diffs, I've been through some of StuRat's very recent contributions to the ref desks and here are a few, with my opinion on what's wrong with them. I'm offering actual threads in addition to specific diffs - as StuRat himself rightly said, context is important:

1. Here we have a first response that is not remotely close to an answer to the question asked, and then a response to a request to get back to the question which simply offers his own personal speculation.
2. Here the question is "Is there any research on the cognitive abilities of seagulls?", and we get this reply which answers a completely different question, and then after further non-answer general discussion it ends up with stuff like this.
3. Here someone asked a very specific question, and we get anecdote about his own PC followed by off-topic discussion that does not address the OP's question.
4. Here we have someone asking of numbers of flying insects are declining, and StuRat pops in to tell us "I've personally killed some 500 box elder bugs in my house this fall". Who cares?
5. Simple question, yet we get this personal rambling that in no way helps to answer the question, followed by this hatting when someone else suggests that his personal speculation is not useful - ironically saying "Meanwhile, we are drifting farther from the OP with such discussions" while excluding his own off-topic chat from the hat and so showing little sign of self-awareness.
6. Here I don't have the faintest idea what the question means, but User:Joel B. Lewis seems to think StuRat's answer is a bad one, and then StuRat gets the last word in while hatting the objection, again hiding criticism of one of his answers. And ironically again, only seeing any off-topic nature in other people's contributions but never his own.
7. This one is more indicative of the problems generally with the ref desks, in that it would have been easy to use weight/calorie calculators to estimate the likely stable weight of someone consuming 3,800 kcals per say at the usual specified levels of activity. Sadly nobody did this, but we also have the unsourced (and highly contentious) claim by StuRat that "all calories aren't the same" - and the "Your best approach might..." does not even attempt to answer the question.

I could go on, but I've no doubt I'd just find more and more of the same stuff. Now, none of the above is, in itself, anything especially egregious - and I'm happy to say that StuRat has provided some good answers too. But the problem is that StuRat's contributions, whether he knows the answer or not, are unrelenting. His approach reminds me of the 'know-it-all' that everyone tries to avoid at the pub (or bar) who cannot resist interjecting themself with unjustified authority into every conversation. Even that wouldn't be too bad if StuRat could listen to others and accept constructive criticism, but he can't - criticism of his answers is "off-topic" and quickly hatted, while he can't see the off-topic nature of many of his own contributions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just going to add this, uncovered by User:Carrite above, which reverts the removal of blatant trolling and shows arrogant ownership of the ref desks = from en editor who regularly hides criticism of his own edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• I'm also copying to here the selection of diffs found by User:Iridescent, which cover the single 2-day period of October 10/11 - [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37].

  Please, don't anyone complain that you have not been given enough diffs now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• As I mentioned there (and you failed to copy here), diffs with no explanation as to what Wikipedia policy has been violated are meaningless. As for reverting deletions, everyone is allowed to do that, it doesn't imply ownership.
• Now for those listed above:
• 1) The OP contained a suspect assumption, that all servicemen and women attempt to pronounce foreign names correctly. I showed that this is not always the case.
• 2) The mirror test is one way to gauge animal intelligence. Once they had that term, they can use it in their searches to see if it has been applied by researchers to seagulls. The funny aside at the end is in small text, showing it's not meant to be an answer to the Q. I added this after serious answers, including mine, had been supplied, in accordance with Ref Desk policy.
• 3) This was a serious response about how using a PC to time events on that PC may not be as reliable as using an external timer.
• 4) This is an example of how human population growth can affect flying insect numbers. Multiply the effect each person has on flying insect numbers by world population, and the effect may become significant.
• 5) The OP may have started with the assumption that all, or most, Muslims speak Arabic. I corrected that assumption. My point 2, specifically, was repeated by Jayron later in the thread, because it had been hatted by then. I hatted only the part of the discussion that seemed to be leading off into unrelated territory, namely Bible translations.
• 6) You really shouldn't produce a diff as evidence of something when you admit you have no idea what it means. The issue was whether to provide only an analytic answer to a math problem, or also propose the numeric methods solution. While the OP did request the analytic solution, that doesn't mean they wanted to exclude the numeric solution. I asked him after, on his talk page, and he said they had no objection to my answer. As for hatting, this type of attacking other editors doesn't belong on the Ref Desk at all, but I left it there, hatted, precisely so I wouldn't "delete criticism" of myself.
• 7) The crux of my argument was that trying to determine what people's weight should be, based on calorie count alone, is a faulty method. I listed several reason for this, as did others. So, this Q can not be answered. Here's a source from Harvard saying that not all calories are equal: [38]. I'm going to add it the that Ref Desk Q now, too. (Too late, it's already been archived, so I put it on the talk page of the person who requested the source, instead.) BTW, you seem to suffer from the same error as the OP, in assuming that a given caloric intake will inevitable produce a given, stable weight. There's simply no evidence to support this. Weight is based on many factors, and calorie intake is just one among them. To come up with such an answer would require faulty assumptions. See spherical cow. Now some might argue, that if it's unanswerable, it should just be deleted. I disagree. We should explain precisely why it is unanswerable, instead, so the OP learns something. StuRat (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Rather a specific- not to say massy- discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 09:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The stable weight of a person's body is based solely on mass/energy in and mass/energy out, regardless of any fad bullshit unless you know how to break the laws of physics (and you have completely misunderstood the science behind that article). And it would have been very easy to provide average expectations of stable weight based on a given daily calorific input and various general levels of output. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC) That's just the type of answer we don't want to give, and if I gave such an answer, people would use it here as a prime example of why I should be blocked. (MASS IN) MINUS (MASS OUT) isn't quite a correct way to calculate current mass, since the initial mass would also need to be considered. But, the Q was about a constant amount of calories in, not mass, so that's all quite irrelevant. Next, if everyone had very similar levels of calorie expenditure each year, then it might be reasonable to assume some average figure. But the calories burned by each person vary dramatically, and even vary with weight (it takes more calories to do many things when obese), so such as assumption is in the spherical cow range of unreliability, and any answer we came up with would be in the wild-assed guess (WAG) range. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Oh, come on Stu, you are completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said. I did not say "(MASS IN) MINUS (MASS OUT)". I used "mass/energy", and a steady rate of "mass/energy" in and "mass/energy" out will result in a steady body weight. If in is greater than out, weight will increase until basal metabolic rate increases sufficiently to utilize all of the ingested kcals. Similarly, if out is greater than in then weight will fall until a new equilibrium is reached. And in both cases, we come to reasonably accurate generalizations that form the basis of those weight/kcal calculators. You suggest you are sensitive to the possibility that "if I gave such an answer, people would use it here as a prime example of why I should be blocked" - can you really not deduce from that that when you have no idea what you're talking about you should possibly just shut up? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC) You're still using "mass/energy", as if we somehow need to consider the conversion of mass to energy and vice-versa here. There are no nuclear reactions in the human body having a significant effect on weight, and your use of that term makes it look like you really don't know what you're talking about and should take your own advice. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC) No, I'm not talking of nuclear reactions at all, I'm simply including all of the mass and the calorific value of food. Food goes in (it has mass and calorific value), and mass (poo, CO2, liquid waste) comes out and energy is burned. The net result is what changes body weight. As for not knowing what I'm talking about, what is your expertise in the subject? This is not an 'argument from authority' thing, but I do have a BSc in Biochemistry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC) But, again, this Q has absolutely nothing to do with how much mass is consumed, and you don't seem to understand this simple fact. You could drink a huge mass of water and not gain weight. This is why the OP didn't ask anything about mass consumed. I am rather suspect that you have such a degree, or you should know this. And you stating that your info is more reliable because you have a degree in the field is precisely an argument from authority. StuRat (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Yes, obviously, because you would pee that water out again and the net in/out balance would be zero - duh! But over any studied period, *all* inputs and *all* outputs need to be considered to assess net effect on weight. Please stop embarrassing yourself by exhibiting your ignorance, because it's getting painful to watch - and having said that, I'm going to stop watching and go to bed, good night. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC) One possible way to calculate current mass would be to look at masses in and out, but, again, THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS Q. This Q is about calories in, not mass in or out. StuRat (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Sigh, yes, but the point that you are still failing/refusing to understand is that once a mass in/out equilibrium is established (ie when catabolism matches anabolism), a weight equilibrium will also be established, and it will be reasonably close to what the standard kcal/body weight calculators say - and an answer along those lines would be a reasonably factual answer to give. As an aside, have you looked to see how your performance here is affecting the !voting? You should. And that really is goodnight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC) But, yet again, this all depends on calories burnt, and the OP provided no way to even estimate this. Thus you are left with a WAG. StuRat (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC) An actual and correct answer would be: E.g. a 25 year old male of 5'10" with a 3800 Calories/day intake could weight about 619.3 pounds taking only the BMR (basal metabolic rate) into account.--TMCk (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Exactly, and other variations could have been offered for folks of different dimensions, ages and activity levels. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC) And how would you justify ignoring all other metabolic processes ? StuRat (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC) FGS! Click on the fucking link and calculate it by yourself.--TMCk (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Then I'd need to make the same highly suspect assumptions you made, or different highly suspect assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out. Just having a button to run a calculation doesn't make the underlying assumptions any more reliable. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) One thousand and one face palms.--TMCk (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Depending on what assumptions were used, you would get wildly different answers, and none of them would be of any use to anyone. This is why neither I, nor the others who responded, attempted such a thing. We understand the futility of trying to provide a numeric answer to such an open-ended Q. StuRat (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Can I ask you what is the basis for your understanding of "metabolic processes"? Do you have any educational qualifications in biochemistry? Any professional experience in such a field? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Actually, no, never mind. All of your answers are unequivocally demonstrating the problems that others are seeing in your misplaced sense of infallibility and your inability or unwillingness to listen - I could not possibly support my case for a topic ban better than you are doing for me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC) (I already wrote my reply before you struck it out.) What about your qualifications ? You are making all sorts of arguments on how that Q can be answered, but do you have any qualifications to do so ? From the quality of your answers, I'd wager the answer is no. But, Wikipedia doesn't actually require any given degrees to contribute to articles, since when they tried such an approach, it failed miserable. I believe the same policy applies at the Ref Desk. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC) BSc Biochemistry, MA Philosophy. Yours? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC) See my response above. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Ouch, StuRat, that's a boomerang moment. Many of us are qualified beyond standard university degrees, we don't need to prove it to you, because we use articles and links to substantiate our responses. You don't. Your OR is actually what we should be avoiding at the ref desk. Once again I support this motion, and I also support the idea that a few other OR-respondents at the ref desks should be subject to the same sanctions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Re: (4). Are the Ref Desks somehow exempt from WP:OR? They shouldn't be. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Certainly not in asides, like that was. You need to be able to distinguish between the main answers and when people just add something amusing at the end. Do none of you ever say anything funny, as an aside, ever ? Typically we use small text to show that this isn't the main answer. StuRat (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC) I could speculate that the more people there are, the more shit we produce, and therefore the more flies there are - but I'm not going to try to answer a factual question by extrapolating from the weight of my own shit and counting how many flies I kill. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC) If you had measured an actual increase in their numbers as a result of, say, using an open sewage ditch, and had a number to report, then you something useful to contribute. Of course, in that case they may have just been drawn from other areas, too, so that doesn't automatically mean their numbers increase, while the flying insects I killed aren't going anywhere, so their numbers definitely went down. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC) So you killed 500 bugs, and you think that is in any way statistically significant when according to some there are an estimated 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 insects on the planet? That the biomass of ants alone exceeds that of all the humans that have ever lived? That there are more insects in one square mile of empty field than there are people in the world? (source = quick Google search). Get a grip. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC) First, we aren't concerned with all insects, only the flying kinds. Next, people are very unevenly distributed on the planet, as are insects. So, human populations likely have very little effect on insects populations in unpopulated regions of the Amazon, but major impacts in cites. Since this Q was about people noticing a lack of flying insects, and most people live in cities, that's the most relevant place to look at effects of human activity on flying insect populations. Bees, in particular, seem to be having problems, and not just near cities. See colony collapse disorder. StuRat (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC) "Most people live in cities" - really? When > 70 per cent of India's 1.2bn population are rural and urban does not necessarily mean city etc, I think even that statement might need a source. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC) [39]. (And that's 3 years old, and the world is steadily becoming more urbanized.) StuRat (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

With respect to point (6), the issue with StuRat's answer is that it is not in any sense an answer to the question asked, something he appears not to understand even at this late date. For the non-mathematical, one way to see this is to note the words "implicit curve" and "partial derivative" appear in the question but not in the pseudo-answer. (Separately, I have changed the reference above to point to my actual username (which is different from my sig, sorry of the confusion).) --JBL (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As you suggested, I asked him if he was dissappointed or angry at my answer. He said he was not, and welcomes all attempts at answers. It's not for you to now go and try to override his response because you didn't like it. I did as you suggest, now accept what he said. (I haven't linked to his response because he really doesn't want to get dragged into all this unpleasantness, but you've already seen it and responded to it.) StuRat (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

So, in the last diff everyone acted like StuRat but... "but we also have the unsourced (and highly contentious) claim by StuRat that "all calories aren't the same"". But that's a correct statement that can be easily cited from the literature. The attitude taken by other posters when they see an unsourced statement is see if they can cite it themselves for the sake of providing refs, even if they happen to have a different view about the subject, and if they really care about sources, instead of wanting to use lack of sources as a stick to fight out disputes. Count Iblis (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Source. Count Iblis (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• On the basis of this last section, TBAN. This was a chance for StuRat to recognise that there was a problem here and to offer some insight into it, with maybe an agreement to observe the stated constraints of the RefDesks in the future. Instead we get a displacement into arguing over calories and a further attempt to demonstrate that his approach of finger-in-the-air WP:OR is right after all.

StuRat, you are not right here. Your approach is not welcome here and will no longer be tolerated. Either it goes, or you do, and from this thread it doesn't seem that you're able to drop the vague unsupportable handwaves. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

But his approach did yield the most accurate answer, i.e. all calories are indeed not the same, that's actually highly relevant to the question asked and it can be sourced from a large number of sources. If you get most of your calories from fat then you're going to struggle to maintain your weight if you eat a lot. If you get most of your calories from whole grains, you can eat your stomach full every day and you'll not get overweight. The reason is that a high carb low fat diet will contain much more nutrients that your body needs for metabolism, you'll find it a lot easier to exercise thereby burning a lot more energy. Fat is more difficult to burn for the body, it can get into muscle cells and there it will cause the mitochondria to become less active and you'll also lose some of them. So, your metabolism will actually slow down if you increase the fat content of your diet. This is all well known stuff that doesn't need to be cited, and certainly not overruled based on the simplistic "calories in - calories out = weight gain" idea that is not even wrong, and arguably is the cause of the obesity epidemic where you have all these fat Americans who get ever fatter as a result of calorie counting and eliminating carbs from their diets. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Source. Count Iblis (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and if a high fat diet lowers your metabolism, that means it reduces the calories burned over any comparable period. It lowers the "calories out" part of the equation and "calories in minus calories out" still holds. Similarly, if someone is getting most of their calories from whole grains, and they eat their stomach full every day and don't get overweight, that's because they're reducing the calories in, and again "calories in minus calories out" still holds. It can't work any other way, because energy can not be created or destroyed - if it goes in the body and does not come out, what happens to it? Yes, different diets are better for losing weight than others, but that wasn't the question. The question asked what weight people would be if their daily kcal intake was 3,800, and for a person who is at a stable weight at that calorific intake it is possible to work out an approximate estimate of that weight - which is what those calculators can do. And what specific foods they are eating does not make a lot of difference - for a person of stable weight, they are burning all 3,800 kcals regardless of the source. Of course, if the person is in a weight-gain or weight-loss phase, all bets are off, but at least the "stable weight" example would have been a helpful answer - and is probably what the OP wanted anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source supporting the idea that a constant amount of calories in will lead to a stable weight. This would require that the individual burn the same number of calories each day, which is a highly suspect assumption, considering how activity levels often change on weekends, on vacations, and in winter, when cold weather forces us to burn more calories to stay warm. The more reasonable assumption is that these increased activities do burn more calories, and that people who manage to maintain a stable weight do so by modifying their caloric intake. That is, just as people get thirsty after sweating a lot, they get hungry, and specifically for high-calorie foods, after periods of high activity. Also, you don't seem to have considered that food can pass through partially undigested, so the "energy in" part is thrown off. And, also, digestion itself uses lots of energy, with some foods requiring a substantial portion of their energy to digest. See negative-calorie food (that name may be overstating the case, but there definitely is an effect of a larger portion of the calories from some foods being used in digestion than others). Also see specific dynamic action. So, again, it's an enormously complex system, and you can't just say if you consume 3800 calories your weight will be X. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A double wammy of inaccuracy by StuRat [40]. Problem #1 Asserting commissioned salespeople are not reliable sources of information is dead wrong. While StuRat appears to think he is an expert on every topic with no evident advanced expertise in most topics, I have extensive experience in several areas. I was a realtor working on commission and I always provided the very best info I could dig up. As a developer I bought hundreds of millions of dollars of real estate, goods and services. Nearly every commissioned salesperson I’ve dealt with provided the best advice and info they could, and the better job they did the more likely I was to order. Problem #2 a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia project pages including the RefDesk. This is typical of his inappropriate posts at RefDesk, and instead of falling into policy he doubles down. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So you use OR instead of refs to refute my claim, which referenced our conflict of interest article ? Why am I not surprised. And, just to clarify, just because a conflict of interest exists in that they make more money if they sell you additional stuff you don't need, that doesn't always mean they will act on that conflict of interest. But it does mean you should treat their advice more suspiciously than those who won't make a profit from giving you bad advice. StuRat (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not answering any question, I'm pointing out StuRat's is giving worthless incorrect advice on who to listen to. This should not be tolerated. He needs to be stopped by Tbanning. Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Who's going to stop you, though? Are you still banned from creating articles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Stay on topic

It's important that this discussion remains focused, StuRat has made thousands of edits to the ref desks, and it's fair to say that most of them are without encyclopedic foundation or verifiable reference. The Ref Desks need a serious shakedown, it's been true for years now, and it has to start with those who use them as social media, or personal opinion galleries. Wikipedia should strive to provide answers to real questions at the ref desks with links to Wikipedia articles or, worst case, external links. We should avoid personal opinions, that's not what encyclopedias are about. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, every response should have a reference. But what does one do with questions that are either too vague or are unable to be referenced? Delete them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, stay on topic. That's not pertinent to this current issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You brought it up: "Wikipedia should strive to provide answers to real questions at the ref desks with links to Wikipedia articles or, worst case, external links." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: "it's fair to say that most of them are without encyclopedic foundation or verifiable reference." No, it's not. Prove it, or don't make such a claim. StuRat (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You summarily fail to provide either links to Wikipedia articles or links to reliable sources. That's precisely the problem. If you did, this ANI thread wouldn't exist. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I regularly provide those, you just conveniently cherry-pick those cases where I didn't. You claimed that MOST of the time I don't, so either prove it or retract the statement. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• So, show some counter-examples.

• I already did, in my response section. Those good answers don't necessarily all reference Wikipedia articles, as some Q's, like finding a math error, don't require refs. But many of them do have good refs. If you want something more recent, we have this: [41]. StuRat (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bugs / TRM, what one does with vague questions is to give the best answers possible within a vague scope. But that is a long way from the blanket "I must answer something" woffle from StuRat. They are miles apart. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Or not answer at all. But just like in real life, if someone asks you a question, you have an innate desire to try to answer it. Maybe StuRat more than some others. From time to time, we see arguments that only answers with citations should be given. But that is insufficient. For example, on the entertainment desk just today, someone asked about umpires overturning reviewed calls. One editor gave a referenced answer, but it was only partial information. I posted the arithmetic which led to the OP thanking the both of us. However, the OP is a ref desk regular, so it's not surprising he gave feedback. If a question is vague, it should be hatted. And then the hatter will get yelled it. It's an endless cycle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And it won't likely be the OP doing the yelling, since he couldn't care less. It will be those who fancy themselves the ref desk owners - the clique. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If vague we can ask the OP to clarify, then hat if they don't respond. StuRat (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A good idea, and probably something the clique wouldn't stand for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The question is how bad that really is in the larger scheme of things. The complaints about not sticking to the fine print of Wiki-rules are coming from mostly outsiders and some Ref Desk contributors who are known to be very strict with the rules and for calling out others when their very strict red lines are infinitesimally breached. I've experienced how forums like e.g. Physicsforums went down the drain precisely because the mods and contributors started to fight each other about such issues when there was no real issue w.r.t. the answers to questions given, other than "the rules". Other websites where they take more relaxed attitude w.r.t. to "the rules" became the prominent websites of today, e.g. StackExchange, Quora, Yahoo Answers etc.. Now, we can say that we're not StackExchange, we're not Quora, we're going to stick to our holy rules. But given that the OPs who ask questions at the Ref Deak can just as well go to the other websites, that's a bit like the East German politburo worrying about people not sticking to communist doctrine when the wall has been breached. They took the decision to disband their State, so I think we should just go about the business of answering questions in a more relaxed way as they do everywhere else.

If StuRat behaves in a disruptive way as judged from the perspective of OPs who don't care about the small details pf the rules we have, then that's a problem we do need to deal with. But otherwise, we should calm down and focus on giving good answers. We should not sit in judgment ourselves of what is a good or bad answer, let the OPs decide and listen to their feedback. Count Iblis (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

If any. Too often, the OP's provide no feedback at all, leaving it to responders to try to figure out what the OP is asking for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thats true. Perhaps if the "Thanks" button was part of each signature instead of having to go to the edit history to find it, we might get more feedback that way. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

We should never try to figure out what the person is asking. That is guessing what the question is. Better to ask a question in return. Brevity is also important, in my opinion. I don't think a troll likes a curt answer. A carefully chosen source provided for the potential troll is also a good idea. In my opinion—and I know some will think I'm crazy for suggesting this—but I think we should in essence troll the troll. Turn the tables, at least provisionally, on a suspected prankster. There are problems associated with hatting and deleting a question. I think we need to hone the art of properly fielding all questions. We should only hat or delete when it is utterly clear that there is nothing useful in the inquiry. Even when the question is not a trolling question—and we often don't know from the outset—all benefit from clarifying the question. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If there's a small number of things they could mean, we could answer them all. For example, in this Q, they asked about the "largest" snake species, which could either mean longest or heaviest, so I listed both, with sources: [42]. Of course, if each answer is very long, then we probably don't want to take this approach. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That is true. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• A corollary of being limited to ten posts a week with a ref for each is that Stu would be prohibited from unhatting hatted discussions, since the act of unhatting does not inherently come with a ref. Are you prepared to accept that implication StuRat? μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat's Proposal

I'd think we could come up with some form of "voluntary probation", with rules for me to follow, such as:

1) Provide at least one relevant reference (inside Wikipedia or outside) to each Ref Desk Q to which I respond. (Note that many Q's only need one ref, to the relevant Wikipedia article.)

2) Limit responses to 10 Q's per week.

I'd like to hear other suggestions, but it should be something measurable, like number of refs, to avoid endless bickering over matters of opinion. Also, I'd like to hear time length proposals for this period. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat, that's a great pair of suggestions. I'd much prefer you to implement your suggested rule (1) and if you did so, I wouldn't worry at all about rule (2) because your productivity and usefulness would excel, far beyond many of the ref desk regulars. If I had my way, rule (1) would be indoctrinated into ref desk behavioural guidelines so voluntarily adopting it would be an excellent start. Perhaps this could be adopted and the impending Arbcom case could be delayed while we give it, say, a month's trial. If we do adopt rule (1) either just for you or across the Ref Desk as a whole, we should also mandate reliable sources be used, because this is an encyclopedia and we should work hard to avoid giving our readers incorrect information, which I have personally witnessed, horribly, many times in a single response (not from you StuRat, but another Ref Desk regular to which this kind of restriction ought to apply). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

3) Stick to facts. Never give your opinion. Just like on a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure a voluntary solution is going to fly with all the support for a topic ban already in place though. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, while the above two suggestions are welcomed, I'd want to see that too - a major part of the problem is personal opinions, guesswork, speculations and irrelevancies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Doing 1) will go a long way toward 2) because by looking things up instead of immediately writing up a response from memory, you're going to be slowed down. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• IMO no, it shouldn't be something measurable; I can't believe that despite the wall of text above you still can't see that the issue isn't the number of comments you make but the number of inappropriate comments you make. Either you're following Wikipedia's rules or you're not; we don't issue quotas for disruption. This proposal as it stands would give you a blank check to continue your speculation, joking and off-topic chatting provided you make one referenced statement somewhere in your response. At minimum, I'd expect I will not make any statement at any page with the prefix Wikipedia:Reference desk/ that is not referenced to an existing Wikipedia article or an external reliable source as defined by WP:RS. (Feel free to play around with the wording; Any statement I make at any page with the prefix Wikipedia:Reference desk/ will either be a quote or paraphrase of an existing and linked Wikipedia article, or will be written and referenced to the same standard to which the same statement would be held were it to be included in a Wikipedia article might also be a workable wording.) If I had my way some variant of this would apply to everyone at the RDs, but baby steps.

  I'd also expect any proposal to make it clear that this is a genuine last-chance offer, not a voluntary agreement which you're free to disregard; I'd suggest either Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project (which is the exact wording Arbcom would almost certainly place on you were this escalated there), or Failure to abide by this restriction will result in 24 hour blocks, escalating to lengthier blocks if the violations continue which is a fairly standard wording for community-imposed restrictions, although In the event of a breach of these rules any uninvolved administrator can unilaterally issue a topic ban of up to one year from any or all Reference desks or some variant would also be workable. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support This is a very encouraging step on your part Stu. I would strongly suggest we take the approach (in this whole issue) that The Rambling Man (talk) advocates in his post above, coupled with Iridescent's proposals we may be on the way to a solution. I would however, strongly suggest that you adhere to Iridescents' strong and precise caveats and accept them. We may be on the road to a solution not just for you StuRat, but the wider RD issue. Irondome (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Moved to Oppose based on Stu's continuation of behaviours which has brought us here in the first place, and what appears to be a 'reluctance' to take on Iridescent's proposals in their entirety. I thought this whole re-opening was predicated on that..Irondome (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• I can see that working (with the above wording for infractions), but with both restrictions, not only #1.

The problem is that while the spirit of #1 is sufficient, what can be enforced is its letter, which will be satisfied with wikilinking the first noun of every post. Now, of course, this is not what is intended. But the problem is not StuRat being an evil genius who devised a fantastic self-restriction proposal in the knowledge that only the toothless part will be applied; the problem is StuRat being a human who cannot help but give speculative answers without searching. So I am fairly sure that if only #1 is applied, after a couple of weeks/months of good RefDesk behavior, they will slip into their old habits again, though obeying the letter of the restriction.

Adding #2 will break the "post first, search later" habit because if StuRat keeps doing it, it will be the end of their weekly posting after one hour, and both consciously and unconsciously this will be felt as undesirable. The 10/week threshold may be a tad low, but it must not be much higher either - it must have tooth to prevent the current modus operandi from kicking back in. Maybe it won't work because StuRat will just reduce their presence here and slip back into old habits as I described - but it is certainly worth a try. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that I did suggest "relevant" references for part 1, so that would preclude linking to the first noun (unless that happened to be relevant). StuRat (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that, but it is not really enforceable. Here's an over-the-top example:

Imagined exchange with a "relevant" link that does not solve the issue at all.
Newspapers say the Sun will be obscured by the Moon next day. What will I see? --Questioner This phenomenon is an eclipse. If you put sunglasses on, you will be able to look at it and see a ring of light around the Moon's shadow. It is quite beautiful actually. --StuRat <angry uncivil rant about how looking at the eclipse without eclipse-approved glasses will get you retina damage> --Tigraan

The link is absolutely relevant: it provides information the OP probably did not have. The problem is that the part of the answer that really, really needed research is unlinked, so the link is not relevant in the sense that matters. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 22:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Having thought a little about this, I think it suffers from the big flaw that StuRat has really still not accepted or addressed the actual problems raised with his ref desk contributions, and has not accepted a single error in any of the examples shown - the complaints really aren't about the lack of sourcing. And the new proposal would still allow him to continue providing opinion, speculation, guesswork, providing he can find a source (and you can probably find a source for just about any opinion out there with a very quick Google search). Again, Iridescent has nailed it pretty well, and his strict interpretation is, I think, the only approach that has a chance of working. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  I need to just add that understanding and accepting the problems is key here - if StuRat goes back to the ref desks actually still thinking that everything he had been doing has actually been fine, we'll be back here quickly (even under this proposal) because nothing fundamental will have changed - and if that happens, there surely won't be a last last chance (but there will be a lot more drama). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

In that section StuRat proposed to take on fairly stringent restrictions. Maybe I am naive about their motivations, but I think they heard the sound of pitchforks. Yes, in an ideal world they would admit their mistakes more directly, but I am not sure that forcing a public confession is really productive, especially if (armchair psychology alert) they are too proud to do it and would rather vanish from the project altogether. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean, and I agree with your point about public confessions. But my fear is that through all of this, I've not seen even the smallest hint of any actual understanding. But maybe it is actually there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• While I still think your examples weren't very good, in particular #7, I do occasionally misread a Q, and thus answer a Q that wasn't asked. This can particularly be a problem when there's a huge volume of responses to the Q already, which got offtrack, and by the time I get through all of that I should reread the original Q to get back on track. (This can be easy to do, as you yourself got offtrack, talking about mass in and out, when that had nothing to do with the Q.)
• I occasionally reply on topics I'm unfamiliar with. This isn't always a problem though, such as if I just provide a link to our Wikipedia article on that topic and ask if that answers their Q.
• I do occasionally add jokes. Whether this should be allowed is an item of dispute, with some apparently thinking there should be absolutely no jokes on the Ref Desk ever, and others allowing it. I particularly think it's useful if the joke/adage relates to the answer, such as "Don't ask the barber if you need a haircut", instead of a rather dry discussion of the conflict of interest involved in doing so.
• I do occasionally add OR/anecdotes, as do others. Seems like it does have it's place, though, such as "I've found PubMed to be a useful source for such info, so you might want to look there".

However, I do always attempt to be helpful, and remain civil, even when others are uncivil towards me. Incivility on the Ref Desk, and in Wikipedia in general, seems to be widespread and widely accepted. That I don't agree with. StuRat (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I was wrong. You really haven't a clue, or are pretending, or have some mild form of autism (but WP:THERAPY), all of which lead to the same conclusion. I withdraw the weak support I had for your proposal, and go back to supporting a full TBan. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I.m.o., StuRat should seriously consider contributing to other sites like StackExchange, Quora etc., doing so will automatically cause him to spend less time here, also the feedback he'll get at these other more prominent sites will come from a much larger group of people. Part of the problem at the Ref Desks is that because it's typically the same few people who are arguing, one tends to ignore that feedback. You get disputes there for the same reason why people at e.g. a base in Antarctica will get into disputes after a few months there. The discussion here at AN/I isn't all that helpful either, while people who are hauled to AN/I for disruptive behavior do get feedback from a larger group, in this particular case the larger group aren't his peers as they're not Ref Desk regulars and the issue isn't the typical sort of misbehavior that's usually discussed here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - When so many editors are peeved with one's participation in any given area? it's best that that individual stay away from the area-in-question. It's not a matter of who's right or wrong. It's a matter of there's a lot of angry editors. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Worst-case scenario would be the problem we face everywhere else on Wikipedia: the notion that any source is better than none, and that whatever source the editor randomly picks up is the best and greatest source, even if they have no idea what they're doing or how to distinguish a good source from a bad source. Then Stu will think his job is done, he's provided a source of whatever dubious relevance, and we'll have endless bickering about why he's still giving bad answers to everything and no recognition from Stu that he's done anything wrong, because surely we can all agree he followed his own proposed solution...I'm speculating and predicting the future of course, but can you really imagine it going any better than this? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry. The time for StuRat's change-of-heart was years ago—before a whole lot of disruption on the desks, before there was a widely-held sentiment to shut down the desks in part because of StuRat's behavior, before it became a TBAN proposal at ANI, before that TBAN was a near-certainty. It's not in the community's interest to encourage editors to ride the system until reasonableness is the only remaining choice, consuming an enormous amount of community time in the process. My Support for the TBAN stands, and I think we would have to get a re-vote from every one of the participants to date, or a similar degree of participation and consensus from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I'm sorry. This is not a penal institution. I commend StuRat's ability to suggest his own limitations. I like to give credit where credit is due. I think many of his posts on the Reference desks were at least acceptable. And I think there is a dearth of guidance on how we are to react under a variety of circumstances concerning types of questions that come our way on the Reference desks. StuRat is one aspect of multi-problematic area of editing just as the whole (successful) encyclopedia is riddled with problems. We succeed by addressing problems and resolving to do things differently in the future. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Boing! said Zebedee, Tigraan, and Mandruss. StuRat has still not admitted that he's in the wrong, and the proposal would, IMO, openly invite finding loopholes in the restriction - we don't want to get into a Jonathan Wild / Brian Haw situation here, where we try and craft a rule that circumlocutes around "Do not behave like StuRat" and only then ban StuRat for violating it. If this proposal had been made five years ago, then perhaps it would have worked, but that point has long been passed. At best, we'll be back here in a month or two arguing about the precise wording of the restriction; I think we should cut the knot now. Tevildo (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment While this is a step in the right direction, it does not address the core problems of guessing, speculation, lack of factual correctness, and sharing irrelevant ideas. A rough idea of how to address most of this is:

StuRat

1) will not guess or speculate on the RefDesk.

2) will ensure that his posts are factually correct.

3) will provide a reference or references that clearly show that his posts are factually correct, with the usual exceptions for WP:SKYISBLUE, but be cautious.

4) StuRat’s posts will answer the OP’s question. (StuRat may ask the OP for clarification. StuRat may provide a reference that answers the OP’s question without answering the question himself.)

5) limit his responses to 10 Questions per week.

StuRat’s proposal to limit the number of questions he answers is a good one since it will cause him to spend more time on each question, and (one hopes) give a better answer.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support StuRat's proposal, and also Wikimedes just above, Though if the other restrictions are followed the 10 per week limit need not apply. However 10 per week limit will also give enough time to research better answers! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett:, literally nothing has been preventing StuRat from better researching answers and generally not posting low-quality nonsense before now. --JBL (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

So it would be good for StuRat to start following his proposal right now, or even better Wikimedes's inclusion of no speculation or guessing. It could give a chance to avoid a topic ban. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this proposal, support full topic ban as proposed earlier. StuRat's promise to include "at least one reference" is invalidated by the proven fact that he doesn't know (or pretends not to know) what a reference is. I've seen him aggressively defending postings of his that were (as usual) crammed full of personal opinion and speculation, on the specious argument that somewhere in there he had included a wikilink, which he thought constituted a "reference". As long as he shows no understanding that references need to be supportive of the substance of the actual answer as related to the question, not just supportive of some tangentially related factoid that his flight of fancy came up with, this proposal will only lead to continuous testing of boundaries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, the problem with StuRat is analogous to the Atheist who lives in a deeply religious village and who has insulted people because he doesn't bother to go to Church on Sunday. A proposal to kick him out of the village has gotten massive support, but the Atheist has made a compromise proposal, he says he's going to attend church every Sunday. As we can see in this section many people agree that this is good enough but some are saying that since he doesn't really believe in God, he shouldn't be allowed to stay. Count Iblis (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Count Iblis, your comparison is puzzling on multiple levels. Do you actually intend to imply that StuRat's entitlement to behave on the refdesk in any way he damn well pleases is comparable to the upholding of freedom of religion, and that people's attempts to stop him from doing this are comparable to religious persecution and bigotry? And are you implying that an offer to make a show of honoring the letter but not the spirit of a sourcing rule should be taken as satisfactory just like honoring church just for show should be enough to placate the bigots? You've got some explaining to do here, mate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • StuRat did not say or imply that he has an "entitlement to behave on the refdesk in any way he damn well pleases". Nor did he say he would only honor "the letter but not the spirit of a sourcing rule". StuRat referred to his proposal as "voluntary probation". Our article on Probation says that "During the period of probation an offender faces the threat of being incarcerated if found breaking the rules set by the court or probation officer." He suggested "rules" that he will follow during a period of "probation". We can't misconstrue his suggestion to mean that he will do as he "damn well pleases" or that he will honor "the letter but not the spirit of a sourcing rule" because if that proved to be the case then he would fail probation.
      What some are failing to understand is that proper functioning on the Reference desks is not a cut-and-dried, formulaic thing. In my opinion this happens to be constantly open to interpretation. That means that anyone fielding questions is on "probation". That is not something to be afraid of. A person's "answers" are open to review. Clearly there is an upswell of critical opinion being expressed of StuRat's functioning on the Reference desks. But the way forward should not be to topic ban him. That is a recipe for our own ignorance. We need to hone our critical abilities as concerns the assessment of responses on the Reference desks. We've got to cut him some slack and use the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Talk page if further problems are identified. Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • read this and take the example of someone who wants to be nude in public. That person may well be right but society will likely think otherwise. The nudist then makes the proposal to wear clothes, but some in society don't think that's good enough because he still holds on to his belief that there is nothing wrong in being nude. Count Iblis (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In the church example you suggest that the atheist could solve the problem by paying lip-service to the community's rules while really continuing to disobey by any meaningful standard.

That may make sense when the rule itself is bigoted. But Wikipedia's rules are more like traffic rules. They're rules that everyone follows to ensure the smooth operation of a shared resource. It's true that many people think that they don't need to follow those rules, or that paying lip-service to them is sufficient, but in this case, that's not a good thing.

I think you've damned StuRat by this analogy, not praised him. ApLundell (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose StuRat’s proposal as insufficient. Paul August ☎ 10:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Future Perfect at Sunrise, Paul August. I could maybe be moved to support if Stu incorporated Iridescent's wording in his voluntary proposal, but all of it, not just a "cherry-pick" of the bits he thinks will leave him more free to post his unsupported opinions and generally irrelevant chatter on the RefDesks. Otherwise that just needs to be imposed. I also note he's still posting irrelevant, speculative blather there, even as this conversation continues. What Stu thinks about how the future of space probe costs will unfold is not anywhere near an RD answer to the question currently asked, it's just self-indulgent forum-like chatter. Looking at that thread does remind me though, that Stu is not the only problem. Iri's "baby-steps" could profitably be speeded up. -- Begoon 11:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Begoon's diff which indicate StuRat may not actually understand what is happening here: to carry on with precisely the same behaviour during the course of a discussion as the behaviour that initiated that very discussion is, to be charitable, rather ill-considered, and gives no guarantees that SR will be able to abide by his own proposal. Sorry, — fortunavelut luna 12:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as a waste of everyone's time. Even though StuRat has seen the way this discussion is going, he still keeps speculating. agtx 14:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It's rather difficult for me to follow rules, in the interim, which haven't been agreed to yet, until there is some consensus for what they should be, so I think I'd better just stop contributing to the Ref Desk altogether until we get this worked out. I haven't heard many suggestions for length or probation. The one I saw said something like "a bit more than 10 weeks". So, 12 weeks maybe ? More ? Less ? What does everyone think is fair ? As for what to include, we have my 2, an additional #3, then 5 more, and Iri's text. Do we want all that, or is some of it redundant or unneeded ? StuRat (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The message seems quite clear to me. The vast majority want you to stay away from the RefDesks. Likely a good idea, to follow that request. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, what is wrong with you? You're already supposed to know not to speculate, to be sure your posts are factual, to provide references, and to answer the questioner's actual question. You shouldn't need to wait for those things to be specially repeated just for you. And no, not for 12 weeks; FOREVER. Why are you wasting scores of editors' time clinging to your personal hobby of goofing around the RefDesk babbling whatever pops into your head EEng 15:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Boing! said Zebedee, Tigraan, and Mandruss. This is just an attempt to WP:GAME the system. I note that there is no mention of consequences for violating the restrictions. Unless there are blocks of increasing lengths (including an eventual indef) for violations - this is meaningless. Also six months away from the R/Ds is the only way to begin any solution to this. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per others. Stikkyy t/c 18:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - @StuRat: I started my TBAN !vote with the statement, RD responders should not draw primarily from personal experience and knowledge. You did not dispute that. To my mind, the statement applies to each individual comment in an RD thread, not only to one's treatment of the entire thread. If a comment draws primarily from personal experience and knowledge, you don't make it. Do you now agree with this and agree to abide by it? Are you prepared to make that dramatic change to how you participate on the desks? Do you honestly think you're capable of doing so? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. Is that one of the terms already listed, or do we need to add it to the list ? StuRat (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• The whole “I can change myself” facade isn’t really convincing considering that you were previously continuing your behavior when you knew that there was a case building against you. Stikkyy t/c 18:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• It's certainly not in the list with that degree of clarity. I think this would exclude about 95% of your comments on the desks; if you disagree, you're not getting the gist. I would like to wait and see whether others think it needs even more clarity, and how many think it's too late for such concessions. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• I've noted that a lot of the objection to your participation is not that you draw from personal experience and knowledge, but that you're too often incorrect when you do so. I should stress that I disagree with that approach. I wouldn't want Stephen Hawking himself to draw primarily from personal and experience and knowledge in any comment in an RD question about astrophysics. The other approach requires you to know what you don't know, and that is virtually impossible to achieve. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, as from his subsequent responses StuRat is clearly not willing to accept the conditions I earlier said would be the minimum I'd be willing to accept (no unreferenced statements except statements so obvious they wouldn't require a reference if in article space; sanctions either in the form of blocks or of an automatic ban from the reference desks should the probation be breached), and is instead trying to haggle about time limits (something which as best I can tell nobody but StuRat himself supports), all while still posting unreferenced speculation at the reference desks. It's becoming obvious there's no potential for a negotiated continued presence at the RDs, as it's now apparent that StuRat doesn't even understand what the issue is. Unless StuRat is willing to accept a ban on commentary, speculation and chatter, enforced by sanctions, the only thing up for discussion is whether there are any circumstances in which a complete topic ban from the Reference Desk could subsequently be lifted. ‑ Iridescent 18:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else. --JBL (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to make better contributions, like this one: [43] but it's tough, not knowing what the eventual restrictions would be. That does contain some OR, as I do work with the blind. Instead, I've decided to halt my contributions on the Ref Desk proper and strike out my current contributions. (We aren't supposed to delete them, in case others have read and/or responded to them, but this gets the point across that "you need not pay attention to this post".) I'm now thinking you want just links, and no commentary whatsoever, as in here: [44]. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to help you, but you refuse to listen. Again, stay away from the RefDesk for at least six months. Otherwise, you're only going to peeve folks off even more & end up getting blocks. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

So, I think we're up to this:

1) Provide at least one relevant reference (inside Wikipedia or outside) to each Ref Desk Q to which I respond. (Note that many Q's only need one ref, to the relevant Wikipedia article.)

2) Limit responses to 10 Q's per week.

3) Stick to facts. Never give opinion. Just like on a Wikipedia article.

4) Will ensure that posts are factually correct.

5) Will provide a reference or references that clearly show that his posts are factually correct, with the usual exceptions for WP:SKYISBLUE, but be cautious.

6) Will answer the OP’s question. (I may ask the OP for clarification. I may provide a reference that answers the OP’s question without answering the question himself.)

7) I will not make any statement at any page with the prefix Wikipedia:Reference desk/ that is not referenced to an existing Wikipedia article or an external reliable source as defined by WP:RS.

8) Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project

9) Failure to abide by this restriction will result in 24 hour blocks, escalating to lengthier blocks if the violations continue which is a fairly standard wording for community-imposed restrictions, although in the event of a breach of these rules any uninvolved administrator can unilaterally issue a topic ban of up to one year from any or all Reference desks.

Let me know if I missed anything. Now, as for the probation duration, I proposed 12 weeks and haven't had any feedback. Is this sufficient ? I can also reduce the 10 Q threads per week number, if anybody thinks that is needed. Are we ready to !vote ?

StuRat (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Stu, the basic takeaway here is that you should only answer questions that you have a good or excellent knowledge of, and provide relevant and strong sources to back up your answers. Just don't bullshit the punters. Its not hard. Irondome (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed, but we need to get this proposal rolling and !vote on it. Is there another point you wish to add to the list ? StuRat (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Um, you made your proposal and we're already !voting on it. I understand that you've added some additional proposed restrictions, but that doesn't call for a whole new !vote. The oppose comments above appear to be largely agnostic to what the probation proposal is—they're generally opposed to any such proposal. agtx 20:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Re Now, as for the probation duration, I proposed 12 weeks and haven't had any feedback. Is this sufficient ?, are you insane? You've had plenty of feedback on this particular proposal, all of it negative. Any plan that allows you to continue contributing won't be a temporary restriction after which you'll be free to resume disruption; it will be a permanent obligation to do what you should have already been doing. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You know what, StuRat? I'm thiiisss close to proposing an indefinite block for you, simply because there seems to be no limit to how much editor time you're willing to waste. Get a clue, will you? EEng 20:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, a great deal of the feedback on this proposal has been positive. User:Tigraan is the one who proposed a bit more than 10 weeks. Permanent probation seems like a contradiction in terms. Of course, after the probation period ends, all the same restrictions that apply to everyone else will apply to me, just not the special restrictions, so accidentally editing 11 Q threads in a week won't get me banned. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• At no point has Tigraan proposed anything of the sort as far as I can see (I think we've established by now that the concept of "source" appears to be alien to you; if Tigraan did say this anywhere then provide a diff of it), and the only person suggesting "probation" is you; the only question is what the terms of your permanent restriction will be. I'm done wasting my time trying to find a workable mechanism for you to return to the RDs; as far as I'm concerned the only issue up for debate now is whether you're just restricted from the Reference Desk or are banned from Wikipedia outright. ‑ Iridescent 21:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe I misread: "The 10/week threshold may be a tad low, but it must not be much higher either - it must have tooth to prevent the current modus operandi from kicking back in." - Tigraan, 21:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC). StuRat (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• There is no maybe about it. Talk about digging a hole for oneself ... - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• That was about the limit of ten answers per week you proposed, not about the duration. I would have thought this was obvious from the context. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - these proposals are just going to muddy the waters and we will end up back here in a very short space of time due to the potential for lawyering etc. StuRat just isn't understanding what is wrong, so forcing limitations like this are bound to result in some overstepping. For what it is worth, I think answers on RD should almost always be in the form of "see our article on name of article" except where two articles contradict each other. In the event that the articles do not address the question, fix the article if the change would be encyclopaedic, and reject the question if it is not. Any fixing should be per our standard policies and guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think answers on RD should almost always be in the form of "see our article on name of article" except where two articles contradict each other. – I think that's brilliant. After this circus is over that should be the next step in reforming RefDesk (though it's not quite that simple, of course). EEng 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That would exclude things like this, which was not only a legitimate use of the desk but a model response (Medeis linked to a wiki article, but the actual source was off-wiki and accessible via the small icon immediately preceding that link). Answer the question and out, no follow-on discussion about how that looks just like a bug one saw five years ago in France, the range of swallowtail butterflies, the fact that those spots are not really eyes, and whatever other tangents can be explored without limit until everybody is tired and moves on to the next such discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's not get into this discussion here and now, but like I said, it's not as simple as always just pointing to an article. But it's a great first approximation, IMO. EEng 20:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That actually shows a photo from Commons and links to the article Papilio glaucus which shows the same photo, so I'd say it is effectively a "See this Wikipedia content" answer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, and as noted above I'm close to proposing an indefinite block just because he's wasting so much of everyone's time. It's outrageous. EEng 20:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any "probation". The reference desks need a complete reform, and StuRat should be completely uninvolved during that process, which may be a lengthy one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328—is there any mechanism in place for that "complete reform"? You say that "StuRat should be completely uninvolved during that process, which may be a lengthy one". Let us assume for a moment that StuRat is topic banned from participation at the Reference desks for that lengthy period of time. Aren't you saying that there will be oversight and scrutiny of all other editors fielding questions on the Reference desks? If so, who is going to provide such oversight and scrutiny? To my understanding no mechanism is in place for critiquing the responses that anyone provides on the Reference desks. And if I am mistaken about that, and indeed there is one or more people who accept the responsibility to scrutinise the responses provided on the Reference desks, then of course they could also oversee the responses of StuRat. My main question is: by what means will there be a "complete reform" of the Reference desks? Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Bus stop, I expressed my opinion that the reference desks need a complete reform but that is no guarantee that it will happen, although I think it is clear that many editors share my sentiment. This is neither the time nor the place for a detailed discussion of how that reform might happen but rather a discussion of whether StuRat should be participating there now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is an attempt at misdirection to avoid an inevitable and deserved topic ban.--WaltCip (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment this is approaching WP:SNOW territory. I feel the initial proposal (a requirement to include 1 reference and a cap on posts per week) was an alternative to a TBAN that could address the problem, but that doesn't seem to have gotten significant support. I don't feel any of the more complicated proposals are worth discussing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as insufficient, per Adam Bishop and the others. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing I could add hasn't already been said by those before me. Blackmane (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - the cliquey, unfunny, ill-informed nonsense on the Reference Desks is the reason I haven't gone near them for years. Looking at the diffs in this thread reminded me of that, and for that at least I am grateful. StuRat needs to stay away from them entirely, forever. fish&karate 12:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose None of this addresses the core issue, none of it is as sufficient and effective as the topic ban. Grandpallama (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Insufficient to address the core issues at hand. A topic ban would also allow us to observe how the RDs function without StuRat and give us a better understanding of what changes, if any are needed. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Again, reluctantly, but given that this whole topic is a set piece in how not to demonstrate insight into an issue, I have no choice. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - (a) The time for this was a long time ago, not as a last desperate move, to say "ok, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong (i.e. the whole thread up to this proposal), but since I might be getting topic banned, maybe I'll say I'll do some of the things people have tried to get me to do for years on end." (b) given how visible/prolific a figure StuRat is on the refdesk, it seems like an important move to understand the character and function of the refdesk in his absence. (c) For the record, after a break of maybe 6 months, I would almost certainly support a measured proposal along these lines, so long as it showed a good grasp of the issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. At this late date StuRat still does not understand the issue. Understanding and change will only come slowly. He needs some time away from the RefDesk to figure things out.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm piling on to encourage someone to close this. No benefit has come from the time wasted discussing the underlying issue over the last few years, and none would come from encouraging the idea that Wikipedia is a great place to express liberty and do your own thing. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

How to appeal?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to appeal this decision. We were making good progress towards writing up a proposal but this was halted in the middle. What is the process to appeal ? StuRat (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I was also about to strike out all my current Ref Desk contributions as a show of good faith, but I don't know if this is allowed now. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You've just been restricted from the RefDesks & have been given (at your talkpage) instructions (including timetable) on how to appeal. Best you follow those instructions. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about different things. I am asking about an immediate appeal that the correct process was not followed, and the consensus was not reached, not an appeal 6 months from now. StuRat (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yo, if you want to appeal, then as GoldenRing has said on your page, the correct place to appeal- whenever you choose to do so- is WP:AN, rather than here. But he also gives you excellent advice: don't. Appealing so soon will probably just reinforce any suspicion that the process was not fully understood by you, if there are such suspicions. Good luck! — fortunavelut luna 17:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@StuRat: If I've understood your intentions correctly, that you think my close of this discussion was improper, probably the best way is to request closure review at WP:AN. However, I do urge you to listen to my advice at your talk page and that of editors immediately above. GoldenRing (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

StuRat, I really really don't think appealing is a good idea. I would like to see you concentrating for three months or so on content creation and maintenance, because that's what we are here for. I would gladly assist you. It would help your cause greatly. Irondome (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I did appeal, and the link is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review request for .22StuRat.27s behaviour on the Reference Desks .28again.29.22. Maybe the deck is stacked against me, but I still have to try my best. I'm not quite sure what to do about notifications, though. I will notify the closing Admin, but I sure don't want to have to notify everybody in this entire thread. Is this required ? StuRat (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Your inability to take advice, StuRat, is almost as strong as your inability to recognise a consensus! The thing is, making all those people effectivey relitigate the case (or be seen to be trying to) will not help your case at all. Why not let it go for a bit? — fortunavelut luna 17:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close reverted

I have reverted the close, as StuRat's own proposal was allowed less than 24 hours (although the close was clearly done in good faith). Whether it was likely to be accepted or not was not for the closing admin to decide, and it deserves to run for longer than that - at least long enough for all interested parties to have a chance to examine it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Someone close this ...

PLEASE!

–EEng

...please. Paul August ☎ 23:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The proposal is just an end run around around a topic ban that was about to be enacted. In fact it was enacted before it was appealed and the thread reopened. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I reverted the first close purely because StuRat's proposal hadn't really been given enough time for people to evaluate it. Even if some might see it as an attempted "end run", I think closing it without enough time for a meaningful consensus would still be a mistake. I think it's better to spend a little more time on it now to be certain of consensus, rather than leaving it open to an early appeal on the grounds that the proposal wasn't given a proper hearing - the latter would surely take up more time overall. Having said that, now that a clearer consensus does seem to be emerging, I would not object to a new close. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Since I commented at AN regarding the close and I cant work out where in the mess above to put it, just going to add it here: Support complete topic ban from ref desks for StuRat. Oppose any lesser sanction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed this needs closing. I won't attempt it again to avoid any possibility of the closer being a problem, but if that's not a clear consensus then I don't know what is. GoldenRing (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  I'd see no problem if you did - the only previous issue was asking for a bit more time to be sure of the consensus, and as you say it looks clear now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  Well if it's still open in the morning, I'll have another think about it. GoldenRing (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• The Numbers: +/- a couple perhaps, as it is a quagmire. But roughly, the figures are as follows: Regarding the tobic ban, 39 supporting, 8 opposing, and, for StuRat's proposal, 3 supporting, 21 opposing. — fortunavelut luna 13:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Is there any relationship between the thread at "Village pump policy" called "RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed?" and the now contemplated banning of StuRat from the Reference desks? I am just asking this as a simple, straightforward question. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  Other than that the second one you mentioned has also run long enough, and could be closed as well? --Jayron32 14:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The connection is really just "There's something wrong with the Ref Desks, so what should we do?", and they're examining two different possible solutions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Mild Support for Stu's 9 point probation, with someone like sunrise or jaryron or other experienced ref desk admin as someone who will keep an eye out, and can hand out 24 hr topic bans if necessary. Rationale: He is infuriating, and frequently talks out of his ass. I'm sure many people see his responses and conclude our desks are utter crap. Few of you understand this as well as me, trust me. However, exclusion os not really the wiki way, and as maddening as his behavior is, I do believe that a) he sincerely wants to help (unlike some other regular ref deskers) and b) he will take this probation seriously, especially with a warden, if anyone would volunteer for that task. Basically, I'd much rather see Stu become a much better version of himself and stay around, rather than be gone forever. If the ban does go through (likely), I encourage him to ask for lifting in 3-6 months, and follow his plan then. I will also volunteer to mentor Stu and review his potential responses, if he would like to post them on my talk page while he is banned. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  Don't bring me into this mess... --Jayron32 15:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant to use you as an example of an admin with relevant experience that I would trust. And you've already commented here on your own. I in no way said you could or would do anything. I completely understand if you want no part of keeping Stu in line, but I stand by my belief that Stu can and might do better if he knew someone with the power to block had an eye on him. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I would trust Cullen328 to oversee the Reference desks. Perhaps he could pick individuals to oversee individual "desks"—one per desk. We should try to come up with a tentative plan. And StuRat should be permitted to field questions under the watchful eye(s) of such people. They should probably all be administrators. And they should each have expertise in the subject matter of the given "desk". Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Er, you did see what Cullen said above, didn't you? The reference desks need a complete reform, and StuRat should be completely uninvolved during that process, which may be a lengthy one. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's probably worth exploring exploring such remedies, but the details need a lot of discussion and they are outside the scope of this proposal. If any remedies are in order, they should be in place within a couple of months and then StuRat can decide whether he can work within the new world order at RD. If he believes he can, he can wait a few more months and then ask the community if they are willing to let him try. This proposal needs to close now. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Picking RefDesk czars is straying pretty far afield of this discussion. Especially as there are threads currently running elsewhere about reform. ApLundell (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sitush properly identifies the biggest of many problems with your suggestion, Bus stop. Since I have called for the reference desks to be closed down, I am clearly not the right person to wrangle the regulars. I am busy with several other things on the project such as learning how to be a more effective administrator and do not want to oversee anything. The designation "czar" leaves me cold, and I agree with ApLundell that reform must be discussed elsewhere. Thanks anyway. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Why talk yourself out of a job, Cullen328? Trump's got someone who wants the EPA shut down in charge of the EPA, someone who wants public education eliminated in charge of education, someone who hates immigrants in charge of immigration, and so on. So why not someone who thinks the RefDesk should be axed in charge of the RefDesk? EEng 01:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I get it, Cullen328, you don't like the designation czar. Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You are quite amusing, as usual, EEng. My response would have been almost the same if no one had used the word "czar", Bus stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the votes of people with no recent involvement in the Ref Desks be disregarded?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The vast majority of the votes to ban StuRat are given by people who express the general view about the Ref Desk not sticking to the sourcing requirement rules the rest of Wikipedia operates under, but they then attribute that problem to StuRat, because the way the complaint is presented against him makes it looks like he is the evil genius when it's a fair fraction of everyone involved there. While there are some issues to address with the way StuRat and others go about contributing to the Ref Desks, I think it's just not possible for outsiders here on AN/I to judge this properly in the way they normally judge misbehavior.

The fundamental difference between this case and the typical case of someone hauled to AN/I, is that typically you'll get someone here who shows behavior that's not acceptable anywhere, such as insulting people, engaging in edit wars etc., and and yo then don't need to be a regular on the affected page to pass the judgment that this is unacceptable behavior and there is then no problem with passing sanctions on that particular editor regardless of what other editors have been doing (they can always be sanctioned later). Count Iblis (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I am beginning to query your cluefulness after this thread, also. Since when have discussions been limited to, say, project members. And since when has the wider opinion of the community been disregarded in favour of a clique. Honestly, you, Bus stop and one or two others need to tread carefully because you're not doing yourselves any favours in this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can have an opinion on the matter after reviewing the evidence provided in the diffs. This is an open forum, open to all members of the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Basically, no, the opinions and arguments of editors who contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia should not be ignored. The Ref Desks are not a walled garden where a few editors can behave however they want to without being subject to the scrutiny of the wider community. Attempts to prevent such scrutiny is harmful both to the wider project and to the Ref Desks in particular.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but we're not investigating the Ref Desk here, just one editor. The fact that the Ref Desk, like it or not, has de-facto become a walled garden, means that you can't pick one editor and judge his conduct there using the rules that apply on Wikipedia generally. As I explained above, it's also because he's not accused of the usual things editors get scrutinized for here. The only way to properly go about this is to examine the situation at the Ref Desk in its totality e.g. in an ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The universal "rule" that StuRat persistently violated is: If your behavior is highly controversial, stop it until you can get a consensus for it. It's that simple. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

But I think you have for years proclaimed on your user pages that ArbCom should be disbanded and that its rulings are irrelevant. Are you cherry-picking or what? - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Good grief; why are we even having this discussion? Count Iblis, if you don't want Wikipedia's rules to apply to your pet project then pick one of these fine alternative providers and move over there. As long as you're being hosted on our website, you're subject to our policies and you don't get to cherry-pick which parts you agree with, and one of those policies is "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". Our purpose is to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally, not to act as the webhost of a chatroom for you and your friends. ‑ Iridescent 20:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• • See my reply to Nigel Ish above. Count Iblis (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Unless AfD discussions are limited to people who have edited the article. In the last year. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TBAN scope

I think it's going to be important for whoever closes this discussion to word the TBAN such that it achieves what the community intends. The reason I'm concerned is this edit, which is a response to this discussion. Even as this is going on and even as StuRat has stricken a bunch of his recent RefDesk comments, he still can't help but use Wikipedia as a discussion platform for his speculation. That appears to be what the community is opposed to, and StuRat's behavior makes me concerned that he'll use whatever loophole he can to keep doing it. agtx 03:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Um. I don't think there's much question that a TBAN would say, in effect: Do not edit the Reference Desks. What is your concern exactly? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That he's answering RefDesk questions in the same objectionable way, just moving his answers to users' talk pages. agtx 03:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the page name. I agree that the TBAN would have to explicitly prohibit responses related to RD threads on any page. But what about email? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And what's wrong with "Consult your nutritionist and/or doctor"? That's per guidelines. And the first part of his comment appears to be correct.[45] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Who cares? It doesn't matter. This is about ban evasion, not about the content of the post. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The ban was imposed, then lifted, then imposed again, so I don't know if that item was technically a violation or not. But StuRat says he's going away anyway. So you and the rest of your clique have won. You don't need to rub it in further. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regret in ANI discussion form

User:NorthBySouthBaranof has now three times deleted my remarks in an RfC [46][47][48]. Despite clarification to the contrary, he apparently believes I am equating his remarks with defending pedophilia. To the contrary, I am not and I attempted to clarify that on his talk page and the RfC. He refused; apparently that is insufficient. He has also told me to "get fucked" and twice to "get the fuck out of here" (see edit summaries)

I ask for a warning or (if an admin deems necessary) a block for an appropriate length of time and myeditsrestored in the RfC in regards to WP:CIVIL, WP:TE, and whatever else applies. I don't care about the contents of his talk page per se (he can delete those as he sees fit per WP:USERTALK).

I ask that someone please notify him as he has also asked for me to "stay the fuck off my talk page", which sort of leaves me in sort of a conundrum. Does the requirement above pertain to required notices? I don't want to do this wrong and be accused of something else. Buffs (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Struck as he appears to be following my edits and is aware. Buffs (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit update adding personal attacks to the list: "you can't properly edit articles about living people." (see below) 09:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit 2: Let's say you don't agree with my interpretation. Can he accuse people of homophobia? Can he just delete all of my remarks? Only one is about this subject and he's deleted 4 comments aaaaaaand now he's taunting me. Where does it end? Buffs (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You described Lawn Boy, a widely-acclaimed mainstream novel written by Jonathan Evison, a living person, as containing advocacy of pedophilia, without citing a reliable source. You linked to WP:PEDOPHILE with extensive quoting and bolding of sections referring to editors who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki when you have ZERO evidence that any person, much less any editor, is doing so. The insinuation is clear - you're suggesting that Evison and, by extension, those who defend his works on Wikipedia, are pedophiles or pedophile advocates. This is outrageous, false, and a defamatory personal attack.

Your comments about the book are wildly inappropriate, borderline-libelous, and certainly a violation of BLP as applied to Jonathan Evison - you are using Wikipedia space to falsely accuse him of writing material which advocates pedophilia. Frankly, the fact that you are continuing to make this false and unsourced accusation against Mr. Evison suggests you should be topic-banned from biographies of living persons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I very clearly indicated otherwise. My citation is a direct quote from his own book. But if you want more sources, sure: [49][50][51][52]. I am not saying specifically that he is a pedophile. I'm saying THEY are saying it and it is objectively reasonable (and widely cited, see previous). I'm also pointing out that the same standards DW has are the same ones WP has. I'm also saying that your assertion that this is all about homophobia is absurd. You seem to be hell bent on reading what you want into this while cursing up a storm and repeatedly deleting my remarks (even those that clarify). I will not respond further to you; at this point you're being unreasonable. Buffs (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. You don't even recall what you yourself wrote, which is a strong indication that you need to step back from this issue. You wrote, and I quote, I find it hard to see how the final description "It wasn’t terrible" isn't advocacy of pedophilia. That is your personal statement of your personal opinion - something which has no place in Wikipedia to begin with, much less when your opinion is that a living person is an advocate of pedophilia.

Cite and quote the reliable source which factually describes Evison, his book, or any part of it as "advocacy of pedophilia." I bet you can't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't engage, but ok: see the 4 sources above; all 4 allege exactly that. Here's another [53] Now, I've already said I'm not going to engage with you. Please leave me alone. Buffs (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. Literally none of those sources can be used to state on Wikipedia, as a fact, that the book or its author advocates pedophilia. That you do not understand this distinction is an indication that you can't properly edit articles about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that it's "critically acclaimed" comes from an unreliable source/self-published source. Hardly the strongest case. Buffs (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs:... You just linked a Washington Times opinion piece... You're not really in a position to be calling out other editors for using unreliable/self-published sources. The problem you get to is when you stray away from what the reliable sources are saying and add your own personal opinion that "it is objectively reasonable” which just FYI, no it actually isn’t. That isn’t any more reasonable than saying that a young adult book about 9/11 advocates terrorism because it accurately covers the events that took place on that day or that Oliver Twist advocates organized crime and street violence. And this is all assuming that your claim about what is in the book is accurate which appears to be in question, even when I give you every benefit of the doubt it simply isn’t an objectively reasonable conclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What NBSB said. Neither author describing something illegal in a work of fiction, nor an author describing a character rationalizing or describing their enjoyment of an illegal act in a work of fiction, means the work in question is advocating that illegal act; by your logic Martin Scorsese has spent the past few decades advocating killing anyone who gets in the way of making money. NBSB might have been more diplomatic in the edit summaries, but I'd say was completely correct to remove your comments. (If a third party has described the author in question as advocating crime, it's legitimate to give their view with correct attribution—that comes up regularly in discussion of books like Lolita and The Satanic Verses—but the important thing is that you're saying "Foo thinks Bar supports crime", not a bald "Bar supports crime". ‑ Iridescent 08:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Texas obscenity laws say otherwise, but more to the point, that's exactly what we're describing here: what the DW (et al) is describing in their reporting. Describing this as "rank homophobia" is incorrect as the objection has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with the graphic nature of the pedophile-relationship in the material presented. In addition to the moving goalposts (rank homophobia, accusing support of pedophilia, personal attack, now BLP...whatever is next...), it is a complete misreading of what I'm saying. What you are advocating is what I am advocating: this is what DW is saying that the parent said; my point is that WP has the same standards, not that any specific editor OR author is a pedo/supports pedophilia. 4 additional news sources are listed above corroborate that. The outrage isn't due to homosexuality, but the graphic nature of the material. I can get more sources to back that up, but I think my point is clear. Buffs (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

And the point is that 'The Daily Wire's "reporting" on that issue is sensationalistic and misleading to the point of, yes, rank homophobia (describing a gay school board member as spending smuch of his energy on the school board focusing on gay and transgender issues rather than education is another example of that homophobia). And that's a great example of why The Daily Wire is an unreliable source on Wikipedia, and why it will remain an unreliable source - and your outrage is because you know you can't actually get a consensus to change that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

1. I was talking to someone else, not you. 2. Questioning how someone is using their efforts for political advocacy over teaching is not "homophobia" by any definition. 3. Again, leave me alone. 4. "your outrage is because you know you can't actually get a consensus to change that" How much longer do I have to tolerate profanity and taunting? Buffs (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• That level of profanity directed at another editor is excessive, NBSB. You should consider apologizing and retracting the swearing.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Given that they are in the edit summaries and/or he's deleted the remarks, he can't Buffs (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  He could say: "I still think you're wrong, Buffs, but I shouldn't have sworn at you, and I'm sorry for the swearing. I won't do that again."—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  It was sheer outrage at the invocation of WP:PEDOPHILE - any experienced editor should know that's not a policy to be lightly invoked in an everyday content dispute, and that it is likely to inflame emotions among any right-thinking person. It's a policy about editors who are pedophiles or who advocate pedophilia, not a policy about widely-acclaimed mainstream novels.

  I apologize for the profane outburst, and I would request that Buffs make clear that they do not believe I, nor Jonathan Evison, nor his book, have anything to do with pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy, and that they acknowledge they should not have made such a flawed comparison. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  That's not unreasonable. Buffs: Are you willing to say right here right now that neither NBSB nor Jonathan Evison are paedophiles or pro-paedophilia advocates?—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I already said I was not claiming NBSB was a paedophiles or pro-paedophilia. He deleted those remarks along with 3 others. As for Jonathan Evison I'm not claiming he is or isn't either (I think a definitive affirmative statement about anyone i.e. "John is not a criminal" is too much, but I will state for the record generally in the negative on both counts for both people. I said the specific phrase in the book seems like pedophilia/advocating it. Now if that's just a fictional character expressing that, fine, I can live with that, but that's still the point of these women's analysis. Lastly, restoring my comments (all 4 of them, not just the ones in question, but also those deleted because "this section isn't for threaded discussion" despite ample examples on the page to the contrary) along with a note "For clarity, Buffs is not advocating either NBSB or Jonathan Evison are paedophiles or pro-paedophilia advocates" written by NBSB will suffice and I will concur...in fact, just put my signature on it with the appropriate timestamp with my blessing + I consider this matter closed. Buffs (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• First of all, I find Pedophilia very disgusting and while I do respect the “free speech” angle, I have always felt speech advocating pedophilia crosses the line, even in the days before advocating pedophilia was an instant permaban on the Wikipedia. So, this can be a very touchy subject. The question, after all of the arguments, seems to be whether this book advocates Pedophilia, or whether opposing this book is “homophobia”. As per WP:BLP, making any kind of accusation of pedophilia needs to be done with the utmost of care to make sure we can strongly support it with sources. So, that in mind, let’s look at the Fox news source. WP:RSP says Fox news is generally reliable, unless we’re discussing politics or science. I do not think this matter is one which is political, so I think we can say a reliable source says that “"Lawn Boy" by Jonathan Evison and "Gender Queer: A Memoir" by Maia Kobabe” allegedly contain pedophilia. In terms of deleting comments from a discussion like WP:RSN, comments should not be deleted unless their is a really really good reason to do so. It is completely inappropriate to accuse an editor of advocating pedophilia without very strong evidence; if any such evidence is present, please notify the Wikimedia foundation as per WP:CHILDPROTECT so we can permaban the editor and scrub their editing history as needed. Samboy (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Samboy, you don't have a "reliable source" stating this: you have a source of doubtful reliability stating that one person, without any qualifications in sexuality, law, or literature, alleged that the books contained pedophilia. Fram (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Buffs, the Daily Wire source is clearly homophobic. Just read the actual title: "WATCH: School Board Squirms As Mom Reads Them The Gay Porn In Books Available To Students". "Gay Porn", not "Child Porn", as if that was the cause of concern (or as if gay porn and pedophilia are one and the same, which seems to be their main message). And further down, it again becomes very clear when they start describing some school board members, or a selection of books. The article doesn't care about pedophilia, it uses it as a way to attack gay literature, transgender rights, and anti-racism. It's a dreadful, utterly biased source. Fram (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Okaaaaaay. Transgenderism and racism aren't even part of the subject in question here. To try and conflate the two is absurd. Buffs (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  As for the rest, yes, it's a verbal description of an act of pedophilia (adult and child), gay (it's between the same gender), and child porn (it's sexual acts of a minor)...yeah, all 3 apply as a description. You seem to be conflating a LOT of things as if they are all the same and at the same time pretending some things are unrelated in this context.

  When you discount every source that disagrees with your opinion, you're going to find that everyone agrees with you. Buffs (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I know that transgenderism and racism aren't part of the subject, but the DailyWire article (where you can't even acknowledge the explicit homophobia), felt the need to introduce these subjects as well, when describing school board members: "Laura Jane Cohen (whose child is transgender and who frequently redirects educational issues to gay issues)," and "Karl Frisch, a school board member who does not have any children, but is a gay man who spends much of his energy on the school board focusing on gay and transgender issues rather than education". When discussing the book selection by the American Library Association, they not only remarked that "An unusually large portion of the books recommended by YALSA are about homosexuality. " (again indicating that this is somehow a problem and of any relevance in an article about a mother alleging pedophilia in one or two books), but also "Much of the youth librarians group’s selections focus on instilling a sense of racial oppression rather than a mastery of reading.", with a discussion of two books about racism, which they follow with "For a list of other questionable titles pushed into schools by the American Library Association[...]". It is your DailyWire source which conflates the topics as if they are all symptoms of the same problem and are all illegal, child-corrupting elements which should be banned. It is your source which makes "gay porn" the main issue, not "child porn" (and your reply here comes dangerously close to doing the same: for some reason it needs to be enumerated as a description of pedophilia, gay porn, and child porn, but not as e.g. a description of porn). Oh, and as far as I can tell, it is the DW and you why try to make it look as if the quoted scene describes actions between an adult and a child, when in reality, the scene is between two childs of the same age (see some of the other sources you provided, e.g. "sex acts between 4th graders" and the confirmation of this by the author: "sexual experimentation between kids". Fram (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Good descriptions for the arguments of those unreliable sources would be: conspiracy theory, moral panic, misrepresentation to instill fear of public education and promote homeschooling and religious segregation from mainstream society, divisive arguments (us/them)... —PaleoNeonate – 12:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If the book only describes child-child sexual contacts and does not describe adult-child sexual contacts, that’s a very different ball of wax. WP:CHILDPROTECT is explicitly about inappropriate adult-child potentially sexual contacts only. Since there is confusion about this, I think it’s very important to edit Jonathan Evison to clarify exactly what is described in the book “Lawn Boy”, which is OK (as per Virgin Killer we can have some content along this vein, as long as it’s clear it’s neutral commentary). Samboy (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The book does NOT cite only child-child acts, but rather explicitly cites exactly what the mother feels is explicitly pedophelia: acts of mutual oral sex between a child and an adult. I am not going to cite the contents here as I truly believe it crosses a line which would get me banned (and, to be blunt, I think that's what at least some want me to do). Both the video and the quote in the DW article rather explicitly show it. To say "when in reality, the scene is between two childs of the same age" is taking common sense and twisting it beyond recognition. While the SCENE is between two younger people, it DESCRIBES mutual oral sex between a child and an adult and ends with "'And you know what?' I said. 'It wasn’t terrible.'" I'll be blunt, I don't know where that falls in WP policy, but I know it's damned close to the line.

"It is your source which makes 'gay porn' the main issue, not 'child porn'..." The first line of the article indicates otherwise "A Virginia mom found that books graphically depicting pedophilia were in her child’s school as part of its commitment to diversity and inclusion — so she read from them, verbatim, to the school board." If you don't think it fits that criteria, then why hasn't someone posted a quote of the contents here? (I implore you NOT to post it; the point is that no one has because it's very risky. DO NOT POST THESE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK!!!) Buffs (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, the DW article is equating gay sex and child porn, by giving a title (and much of the content) about gay porn and homosexuality, while using the (fake?) outrage over a supposedly pedophilic scene as a coatrack to hang their homophobic, transphobic and racist agenda on. The source is clealy homophobic and shouldn't be used (and we have much more acceptable sources about the same incident anyway). As for the scene quoted by the DW (that's the one we're discussing, right?), it describes an adult telling what happened to him as a child with another child (who is now also an adult), "Doug Goble, a childhood friend who has launched himself out of the res and into a flashy real estate career."[54]. The scene is not between an adult and a child. He is decribed as another kid in the book, p. 43[55] Fram (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Fram's explanation of the scene seems likely correct. If Buffs is going to continue to claim otherwise, they need to provide far better sources than the Daily Wire. I note even the Daily Wire's snippet makes it sound like this is at a minimum a conversation between older teens if not adults e.g. "Nick waved me off and turned his attention back to his beer." While by itself this doesn't prove the age of the other participant at the time, even without reading the book it seems entirely plausible that said participant was also a child and they're just called a "real-estate guy" because that's what they are now. And if this is a conversation between adults of something that happened when those involved were children, this seems to further prove what a terrible source the Daily Wire is. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree (I know, not a shock). It at least arguably falls under US Obscenity laws and fails satisfies the Miller test. Buffs (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. If you have to cite the Miller test in an argument, you should probably re-evaluate your argument. Especially when you're just utterly incorrect, as the book doesn't meet a single prong of the Miller test (I assume you meant to say that it satisfies the Miller test, not that it fails it). Mlb96 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Argh...yes... I also think that reasonable people can disagree. If we disagree, we disagree and I'll abide by consensus. Buffs (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course reasonable people can disagree. But your disagreement makes no sense in the current discussion. The claim was that the DW, or certainly that piece, is homophobic (and transphobic and racist) and tries to influence their audience even further by lying. Whether the book is or isn't obscene and would or wouldn't satisfy the Miller test is not what the discussion was about. If you can't even admit that the DW (and by extension you) was misrepresenting the disputed scene, then there is nothing left to discuss. One can only have a meaningful discussion if the participants at least are willing to admit factual errors. Fram (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: disagree about what? You started off claiming that the book depicted sex between an adult and a child and this is what the Daily Wire implies it's about. You went so far as to claim it is implausible ("common sense and twisting it beyond recognition") that the depiction was something that occurred between two children, saying it's clearly between an adult and a child.

Fram has provided a sourced explanation that your understanding of the depiction, which is a recollection of something from childhood, is wrong. This includes something in the book itself suggesting this isn't simply an explanation the author offered when there was controversy but instead something anyone who read and understood the book would know. If you can't provide any sources to counter this explanation which seems difficult anyway, you need to stop making allegations to the contrary or you should be blocked until you do. This isn't something we can agree to disagree. You are free to believe what you want but you cannot let your inaccurate views of stuff influence your editing here let alone promote them.

The issue of whether it's obscene is largely separate. If you now want to only focus on the obscenity thing well I see no need to discuss whether it's obscene here since it's so irrelevant. It being obscene didn't justify the Daily Wire misleading viewers about what it depicts. If they want to argue it's obscene or is otherwise inappropriate or dangerous for kids, they are free to do so without misleading about what it depicts especially not in such an extreme fashion. As an RS it is their responsibility to do the research and make sure they don't mislead. Even if we're generous and assume they simply failed to research, this still suggests they are not an RS considering the allegation was extreme and yet easily answered by reading the book. But worse, even if we assuming an initial claim failure of fact-checking, it seems very likely someone has pointed this out by now yet we see no correction.

As for you, I was initially thinking it was simply a case of sorry "I trusted the Daily Wire when I shouldn't have, sorry". But as Fram pointed out you seem unwilling to just accept that you were wrong and so mislead us like the Daily Wire. Ultimately you don't have to accept fault, but you do need to stop misleading about what the book depicts. As for the obscenity angle feel free to discuss that somewhere appropriate although you would need to do so based on what the book actually depicts not your alternative facts view of it. Note this would not be in RSN nor here at ANI since the recollection being obscene doesn't justify the Daily Wire misleading about what it depicts. I'd note that your earlier comments suggest you agree obscene or not, there's a big difference between a recollection of sex as a child with another child, and recollection of sex as a child with an adult. So I assume there's no dispute that it matters a great deal.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• ♫ Lawn Boy ♫ spam. El_C 12:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  1934 mechanical non-spam....2007 humour spam. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

NBSB's large removal is not acceptable and the editor should not revert an edit like that again. Look at this systematically. Using this edit as an example [56]. First, the edit summary is not acceptable and violates CIVIL. Some editors feel that it's OK to be uncivil so long as you are in the right. That is simply not true. While an editor might be in the right, incivility invariably makes it harder to find compromise as it makes both sides more entrenched. There is also the risk that the editor is in the wrong on the facts of the case in which case they have made their error that much worse by adding incivility to the mix. This sort of incivility should always be discouraged even if the editor is correct on the facts.

Should the edit have been reverted? First, as a clearly involved editor it would have been far better if NBSB asked a third party to intervene. Absent that, NBSB's edit removed more than just the offending content. It removed material that was germane to the discussion while not being the specific offending material. That is not acceptable. If an editor makes a reasoned, on topic point and includes a personal insult, the insult should be removed, not the entire edit. So NBSB's removal of the whole edit was not acceptable. On the final point, was the claim specifically homophobic etc, I haven't looked into the sources enough to decide. If there is some level of doubt then the content should have remained or should remain until more editors can weigh in. Regardless, NBSB's objectives can be good faith even though their methods were needlessly antagonistic and blunt. They should be strongly encouraged to be more careful in the future and certainly not edit war to remove the talk page comments of another editor. Springee (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Springee At a bare minimum, would someone restore my non-controversial queries? I'm not going to edit war over it. Buffs (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think, since we’ve gone back and forth so much about the supposed scene in Lawn Boy, it will do a service to our readers to have the entire scene here, especially since the book is paywalled (I have had mixed luck opening up the relevant pages in Google Books, sometimes it tells me I’m not allowed to preview the book). This is clearly fair use: It is commentary about the scene, and it’s essential to include the entire scene so fellow Wikipedia readers can look at the source evidence and come up with their own conclusions. Please note: In the interests of WP:BOWDLERIZE I will leave two uses of a homophobic slur intact; I do not endorse the use of this slur, but it’s important to have the original text here as-is.

“What if I told you I touched another guy’s dick?” I said.

“Pfff.” Nick waved me off and turned his attention back to his beer.

“What if I told you I sucked it?”

“Will you please shut up already?”

“I’m dead serious, Nick.”

“Well, I’d say you’re a fag.” [Again, I do not endorse the use of this slur, but it’s important to leave the source material as is. Again, WP:BOWDLERIZE ]

“I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Dick Goble’s dick in my mouth.”

“The real estate guy?”

“Yeah.”

Nick looked around frantically. “What the fuck are you talking about, Michael?”

“I was in fourth grade. It was no big deal.”

Cringing, Nick held his hands out in front of him in a yield gesture “Stop.”

“He sucked mine, too.”

“Stop! Why are you telling me this?”

“And you know what?” I said “It wasn’t terrible.”

[Some other conversation]

“So, you’re saying you’re a fag?” [Again, and I repeat myself I do not endorse the use of this slur, but it’s important to leave the source material as is. Once again, WP:BOWDLERIZE ]

“I doubt that. It’s been twelve years since I touched a dick. But that’s not the point.”

This is the entire scene. Some things: There is absolutely no WP:CHILDPROTECT issue here; the scene described second-hand is one which happened between two children (Elsewhere in the book: “eight or nine other kids, including my hero, Doug Goble”), so it does not run fowl of our very strong anti-pedophilia guidelines. It’s not a pornographic scene; the interaction is only described secondhand, and very curtly describes something which happened a long time before. The point of the scene is to challenge Nick’s prejudices and let Nick have less bigoted views of gay people. It looks like the DailyWire grossly misrepresented the scene, and I think a reasonable person can infer that the DailyWire wrote their article with a homophobic agenda. Samboy (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

As stated above, if it doesn't meet WP:CHILDPROTECT criteria, it at least arguably falls under US Obscenity laws and fails satisfies the Miller test. You don't have to agree, but at least some people think so, if not the "average person". To say this a "homophobic agenda" is a step too far; I don't think this was intentionally misleading. Without additional context, which the speaker did not provide, it very much sounds like adult-child sexual interaction. With more context, the fact that it's two adults talking about underage homosexual acts that one person doesn't want to hear about...I'm not so sure it's that much better, though it's ironic that the speaker's mic was shut off before she could finish "because there are children in the room" [there weren't]. Buffs (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"if it doesn't meet childprotect criteria"? What more do you need to actually admit that no, it doesn't? And what more do you need to recognise a homophobic article as blatant as that one? "Oh, we have one pedo book" (quod non), let's equate this in our title with "gay porn" (the oldest homophobic trick in the book, equating homosexuality and pedophilia), and let's add some other books with homosexual themes (and now that we are busy, transgender and antiracist ones as well) as if these are obviously problematic; and to top it all off, let's highlight some school board members with the same "agenda" and create a false juxtaposition that you are either interested in reading or in these themes (for the American Library Association), and that you are either interested in education or in these themes (for the school board members). That you have an issue with books which include a short discussion about "underage homosexual acts" (as if the homosexual nature somehow makes it worse or unacceptable) is not surprising I suppose, after all the above. But that is in the end not important: what counts is our BLP policy, and what are or aren't reliable sources. Fram (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the entire introduction of claims of pedophilia in a book, a hypothetical speculation of an author's intent and an article about a school boards judgment over a book is an attempt to derail a discussion on whether a website should be deprecated as a source on Wikipedia. Look at the energy invested in this discussion which has turned into arguments over civility. I would have removed the comments as being a salacious tangent to the purpose of the discussion which has nothing to do with Jonathan Evison and his book and is supposed to focus on The Daily Wire being used as a source. If that was your goal, Buffs, it looks like you succeeded at least for a day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s hard to see how Buffs’ behavior here could go unsanctioned — it’s grossly inappropriate on several levels. —JBL (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Liz makes a good point above, so I encourage participants here to not allow this diversion to distract from the RfC at RS/N, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Daily Wire. It was preceded by this discussion that is worth reading: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire Feel free to participate. The more eyes the better. -- Valjean (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Both editors here are at fault. It is just one over-reaction following another. Aircorn (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that what Buffs has done, is to seriously misinterpret a source, be very wrong, and be persistent, in a content dispute; whereas what NBSB has done is to swear at Buffs and delete Buffs' talk page contributions. I think NBSB is right about the content dispute but it's only NBSB's behaviour that's clearly sanctionable. I think it would be harsh to issue an actual sanction for the swearing because (1) NBSB has apologized and (2) in context, it's reasonable to understand the swearing as a stress symptom caused by feeling unjustly accused. I do think Buffs' behaviour could be sanctionable if we feel that he's intentionally misrepresenting the source. Do we?—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have found and quoted the original. To Buffs’ credit, the original passage in “Lawn Boy” without context looks really bad. To correctly understand the scene, one needs to understand that the fiction character Goble, while described as an adult in the scene, was actually around the age of the main character when the fictional oral sex happened. It looks like DailyWire messed this up: They either did not read the original book in its entirety, or they read the book but felt they could get more clicks by quoting one part which, without context, can look like an extremely inappropriate adult - child relationship. This is just one reason why the DailyWire is “generally unreliable”. (Don’t get me started about how a single TheVerge article about Marvin Minsky which misrepresented some court testimony has resulted in us having a low level persistent vandalism problem on that article). Samboy (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

S Marshall, Buffs has had ample opportunity to retract their repeated mischaracterizations; as far as I see, they have not done so. I can't definitively say whether this speaks to intentionality (as opposed to, say, stubborn incompetence), but I think it is not acceptable behavior either way. --JBL (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I've restored my comments (sans the ones that people find objectionable as listed above...) myself because no one seems to actually have any problem with them. The fact that no admin stood up and said "no, his comments shouldn't have been deleted; that's uncivil" and restored them is one more point of evidence that clearly the admin corps isn't up to the task. Unless there are further objections, I think this ANI has run its course. But if people want to pile on with additional criticism, go for it. Buffs (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not really their job to restore them, if they did they would be involved and acting in general editor capacity. —PaleoNeonate – 21:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the admin who did consider this discussion was concerned with whether to hit you with sanctions for sending a discussion about the quality of a online news source into a tangential death spiral on pedophilia, not whether or not they should restore your deleted comments. But I think most admins saw this discussion as either a minefield or they knew that the heat would cool down in a day or two. But that's just a guess on my part.

Buffs, if you think the admin corps aren't "up to the task", maybe consider an RfA, we could use more admins. But a warning, an RfA will make the ANI board look warm & cozy in comparison. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I wouldn't want anyone I know to become an admin on Wikipedia, in fact, I would discourage it. I think the admins we have are phenomenal whether we agree on content or not. We may even disagree on principles and I still believe you all do a great job considering. I dare say its even necessary and I know it but I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I classify it as "at your own risk". I respect the hell out of every admin I have run across or dealt with, for real. --ARoseWolf 16:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I was blocked for deleting insulting comments on my own talk page and someone else does not even get a reprimand for deleting 4 different remarks of mine and making multiple disparaging remarks about me? Double Standards here. Buffs (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You consider this "deleting insulting comments", yet have on the one hand no problems claiming pedophilia and so on left and right but fail to see actual issues like the homophobic, transphobic, racist contents of the DW article you defend? Contrary to Liz, I wouldn't suggest that you consider an RfA, as it would go down in flames. Fram (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are we talking about an RfA (sneeringly or not) for a user who should have been blocked or otherwise sanctioned for their behavior above, about which they seem completely unrepentant? --JBL (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are some of my fellow editors sneering in the first place? The incivility is appalling and down right shameful. But carry on chipping away at the foundation of this collaborative effort, nay humanity itself. That makes total sense. I'm not supporting Buffs' position but I'm not supporting the sarcastic and relentless incivility I see here either. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion gradually starts to veer off on a sidetrack one or two posts above or below this. This is my best uninvolved approximation of the place to make the boundary. Please resume discussion about the issue at hand below this hatnote. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strange how you always pipe up when a problematic editor gets criticized for their problem edits, but fail to appear when those editors are incivil themselves (here, and much more egregiously at the LouisAlain discussion). I guess that the collapse of humanity only counts when it comes from some people, and not from others? Shaemful indeed. Fram (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Yes, seriously -- there is an important question here and so maybe if you want to whine about tone you should whine about the tone used by Buffs while repeatedly falsely accusing people of promoting pedophilia etc. FFS. --JBL (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC) That's like saying he did it first so that somehow justifies us disregarding a foundational principle of this encyclopedia because well, he did it first. Incivility is never justified by anyone whether its the initial instance or in response to. Not by Buffs, by me, you, or anyone else. I have no issue with problematic editors being brought to ANI for their problematic edits. But there comes a point when you have said all that needs to be said and it simply becomes piling on. Bring out the issue, discuss the issue, make a ruling and move on. Continuing to attack and go after another human being is shameful and I wont apologize for calling it that. The issue has been discussed. If you have a proposal then make it. --ARoseWolf 12:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Which doesn't change the coincidence that you are swift to patronize one side and ignore the other one (let's face it, in the LouisAlain discussion there was just one person truly horribly incivil, which some dreadful personal attacks: yet you chose to ignore all of that). Fram (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Please show me where I defended any specific personal attack on anyone. Make sure to include diffs of me saying I support personal attacks. Otherwise you are making inferences into what I have said and I suggest not doing that without asking me what I meant because you really have missed the point if that is your conclusion. There was incivility and personal attacks that went both ways. My comments made were for everyone involved. If you chose to only see me as patronizing one side then that is your choice. What I didn't see the need for and I continue to advocate against is the piling on of an editor, especially one that walked away from the encyclopedia even before he was blocked. Louis is gone so continuing to discuss that case is pointless. I will say that one persons attacks does not justify a response in kind. I don't see anything here that says civility is optional. EVRYONE must act in a civil manner at all times. Even knowing that we are human and mistakes will happen it still doesn't justify it. --ARoseWolf 13:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I didn't say you "defended" them, I said you "ignored" them. If you meant to address everyone, then it is very unlucky that you only appeared after some hardly incivil comments from one side, and didn't pipe up earlier when you hade plenty of chances to address actual, direct personal attacks. With "especially one that walked away from the encyclopedia even before he was blocked.", you mean LouisAlain, yes? Not only did he announce his departure multiple times over the years, he was editing throughout the discussion and at the time of the block, and announced that he would sock as an IP after the block, just like he apparently did at the French Wikipedia after his block there. "I will say that one persons attacks does not justify a response in kind." No, that's why no one compared LouisAlain to a Nazi, a pervert, a dictator, ... even after he called other editors such names. Most of us know that we shouldn't respond in kind, and most of us don't. But apparently we shouldn't have responded at all, lest humanity collapses. Oh well, at least some of us have the civility not to discuss the perceived negative intentions of others behind their backs. Leading the battle for civility by example eh? Fram (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Incivility is not just calling people names, its tone, its approach. Name calling is an obvious. Louis and anyone should be ashamed for calling anyone those things. It doesn't excuse the responses. What is causing humanity to collapse is the lack of understanding, kindness and civility. Did I say a single thing that wasn't true in that statement? That entire thread became more about the perceived character of a person rather than just a discussion about their problematic edits which is where it began. It moved into personally and relentlessly attacking an individual. There is nothing perceived in what was said in the discussion of Louis. The intent was made plain and clear. Even so I still have respect for most of you and the ones I omitted from that are the ones in that discussion I don't know or haven't involved myself with but I assume are respectable people as well. Nothing on Wikipedia is behind anyone's back. You are free to look at anything I have said anywhere at any time. If you view this as a battle then that's your choice. I don't view it as a battle. I view it as an opportunity for our community to grow and fall back on the principles it was founded on and to check our own interactions with others to ensure we are upholding the principles of civility in our own discussions. I do believe the pillar of civility is quite literally one of the most important but not because it is more important than the others but because the others are easily definable and even easier to correct. Civility is the most disregarded of all of the pillars. Civility is hard to maintain when we feel challenged and when we face incivility directed at ourselves. It is still no excuse to return the like. By that I don't mean returning the exact same words incivility because I don't differentiate the action. There are no types of civility or degrees of incivility. You wont find one list in our policy on civility that shows the degrees by which civility exists or the degree to which we may respond to incivility. Civility is civility. Incivility is incivility. We can keep discussing this and going around in circles if you wish but nothing is going to sway my principles to the point that I will agree that the incivility, tone or otherwise, on this thread or any other thread or by anyone on any of these threads is permissible. Obviously you disagree with my viewpoint and that's okay. We can disagree. --ARoseWolf 13:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I see. When you ascribe nefarious motives to people (again, only one side of course) and do so in a place where these people are unlikely to notice it, it is not uncivil or behind their back, as they could have seen it if they really searched for it, and it is all completely factual, no interpretation or opinion injected (and of course no uncivil thing in sight) in "The approach by so many that I hold in high esteem in that thread was vicious incivility. It was targeted for one single purpose, discrediting another human being, not just their work but them, their person, every aspect of them. It was to tear this human being to shreds in the hope they would do exactly what they have done which is quit." I think I will take my civility lessons from someone else. Fram (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Oh, and you know what else is also a sign of civility? Acknowledging the mistakes you make, like claiming that LouisAlain had quit or that I had said that you had "defended" personal attacks: while it is definitely not civil to simply ignore your mistakes and continue as if nothing happened. It gives the strong impression that you are only interested in making your point, and not in listening to what others might have to say. If you want people to listen to you, first show that you are capable of listening to them, learning things from them, and seeing where you might have been wrong. Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Louis' last edit was to his own talk page and that was to blank it. That was on the 25th, the same day he was blocked. His last "official" edit was on the 24th and that was to change a date in an article. He left a message on the AN thread under the word DONE. A day before he was blocked. He blanked his user page the next day. He quit before he was blocked. I did err on one point and that is that you did, in fact, say I had ignored Louis' personal attacks which is also not true. You can cherry pick my statements to try and prove your points but anyone can, if they so choose, look at the sum total of what was said and in what I continue to say. I neither ignore nor defend any incivility, whether that is found in a personal attack, disruptive editing or in the lack of understanding and kindness shown to another human being and regardless of whether it was said in an initial attack or in the 100th response to said attack. No incivility is justified, period, under any circumstances. Was Louis wrong for being uncivil? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. But that doesn't give anyone the excuse to also be uncivil in their tone, remarks or attitude directed back at him. I listen. I read and listen better than most give me credit. And I do evolve and so does my position. I have no issue admitting when I am wrong. --ARoseWolf 16:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC) He was blocked the 25th at 08:19, and then blanked his talk page the same day at 08:49. In the ANI discussion, he was asked to provide the Babel template on his user page: he did this[57], and replied at ANI, starting his reply with Template:Done, "often used on talk pages to show clearly that a section of discussion has been resolved", not an indication that one is "done" with Wikipedia and ceases editing altogether. So no, "He left a message on the AN thread under the word DONE. A day before he was blocked." is not really correct, unless you consider "29 minutes before" the same as "the next day". "He blanked his user page the next day": he didn't blank his user page, he blanked his user talk page, "30 minutes later". And then he went to dewiki and clearly indicated that he will continue to edit here, but as a sockpuppet. So no indication that he quit before the block, and every indication that he had and has no intention of quitting. Fram (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not have many regrets, but reading this ANI thread is one of them. Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Second that. ––FormalDude talk 12:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Standards that are accepted by the Wikipedia community

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP 76.69.87.247 is attacking other editors, mainly Ahunt, and calling them "Nazis," particularly at the page Harsha Walia. I heard it was ANI tradition to provide "diffs" for proof,^[Humor] so here they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarsha_Walia&type=revision&diff=1053477622&oldid=1032293624
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harsha_Walia&type=revision&diff=1053551358&oldid=1053518670
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harsha_Walia&diff=next&oldid=1053551655
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAhunt&type=revision&diff=1053550321&oldid=1053462760

If I forgot any part of the ANI process, let me know! /gen Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: Do thank other Wikipedians who help you. It means very much! Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)}

Neat painter dicovered

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"emerald" is a colourful word, and although Emerald Sea is a common name for this picture by Albert Bierstadt used by people selling art reproductions and by Google, its name in museum collection catalogues and art histories is Shore of the Turquoise Sea. But I am sure the user was looking for this. How could xe not be? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Here. He's lucky that word has a different meaning where I come from. Adam9007 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The IP’s last few talk page messages justify a civility block. – Levivich 18:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

In view of the user's colorful word choice, I've taken the liberty of extending the block to 1 week.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Uncle G: Cool. Have you suggested this choice at the relevant RfD?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Well thanks to Uncle G I've now discovered a very cool painter I didn't know about previously.Excellent selection of classic American scenes,but the artist really needs to choose a maximum of one title per painting :) Lemon martini (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This closure note made me wheeze

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-mobile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Herostratus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stephen Hogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

DRV for Hogan ended with relist with the comment No consensus, but relisted. Opinions are about evenly split between endorse and relist. I'm discounting the opinion of the appellant, Supermann, because their 24(!) contributions to this DRV have been disruptive. Responding to any and all views one disagrees with needlessly extends and complicates a discussion, see WP:BLUDGEON. Because of the walls of text, any good arguments on either side are not easily discerned and I'll have to do with the headcount. Given that we have no consensus here, I as DRV closer can choose to relist the AfD. I'm doing so because the discussion was relatively short and not previously relisted. It is therefore possible that a relisting might result in a clearer consensus by DRV closer Sandstein at Special:Diff/1055526045. Following the relist it looked highly likely WP:BLUDGEONing were likely to continue, additionally the formatting was making it difficult to determine who was saying what and a bolded comment from Herostratus looking like a double !vote (The first wasn't a correct formal !vote but at a minimum orginal formatting was unclear and disruptive). I rightly or wrongly called for a stop at Special:Diff/1055666204. Matters seemed to improve (at least for now) but Herostratus has challenged me with Hey, don't threaten people with ANI. Either open a case or keep quiet. ANI is not for waving around to frighten other editors with empty threats. That's just really insulting and inflammatory. It's not a good way to move discussions like this forward in a calm manner, I don't think.. I like to think I don't do idle threats but state my genuine intentions, so here I am, albeit somewhat reluctantly. I am somewhat also mindful of this edit Special:Diff/1055097347 at the DRV which at least on first glance seemed to attack several admins, and while I've glossed over it at the talk page I feel a little uneasy about it (if I re-read it very very carefully its maybe not quite as bad as I thought but it certainly resulted in BusterD having to give a detailed explanation). My feeling is Hogan is likely just notable and deserved of the article: bringing this here will likely attract towards its deletion and possibly a boomerang on myself. Hopefully the AfD can run its course without BLUDGEONing and VAGUEWAVE, and this ANI thread will simply close. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Would you like to -- concisely -- state exactly what your issue is, and what you are looking to see done here? Ravenswing 12:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing. But like terminator Arnie if issues continue I'll be back. Object is to curb seeminlgy problematic behavior. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rule 83 of Wikipedia: Never suggest eugenics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Jacee215 (not sure if this person is "for real" or just trolling) and I have been engaged in a draining, over year long (starting September 6th, 2020) back and forth regarding Fighting Network RINGS and Volk Han.

Talk:Volk_Han

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability

It began when Jacee deleted large chunks of information from Volk Han's page that I had to revert manually, with a message at talk page claiming him to be a fake fighter with numbers-based name. I humoured him till he went away. Only for him to return some year later to do it again, this time with Dave Meltzer quote (used out of context) to justify it - and that's when the vicious cycle began. I took the topic to MMA wikiproject, since no clear consensus about the matter has been formed. It's been just him and me with one comment from User:RafaelHP - comparing the situation to one like with Nobuhiko Takada.

I generally agree with consensus that "Volk Han is a shoot-style pro wrestler who did some MMA fights" - which he disagrees with. Jacee appears to think that Han is a complete gimmick-based pro wrestler, comparable to the likes of John Cena and Triple H. That Han has not done *a single real fight* described in his MMA record (which presently excludes 91-94 era fights from early RINGS, proven to be worked/kayfabe) and saying that "treating Han's RINGS fights real is like treating Cena's WWE matches real." He remains adamant on his view, unable to tell apart WWE style pro wrestling and Rings' "first shoot wrestling-then-mma" to realize what the gray area with Volk Han is really about.

He often appeals to common knowledge to avoid providing citations to back his claims - which I realized only this week that he cannot do (on basis of Untested facts or arguments, indirect knowledge and controversial claims without clear consensus on wikipedia).

I confident that he is outright trying to game the system (on basis of "Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification, or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy") to get his take through. That or he has been playing around with me this whole time.

I've recently issued a detailed rebuke at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability, with NEDOCHAN telling Jacee to stop removing a MMA records. Regardless, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts, NEDOCHAN instructed me to take this issue to ANI and so I have. TrickShotFinn (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

More or less what he says is correct in terms of the events sans all the biases. I just want this one thing to be known: Volk Han was not a fighter. All of his matches are works, every single match listed on Wikipedia was a work. Jacee215 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jacee215: Could you provide evidence that Volk Han's MMA matches are so-called works? Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 16:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7R5qAQNFso . However, I will absolutely 100% admit. I cant find people saying "this guy is a big fat phony." But in that same vain, i dont think people say that about John Cena. How about this, SOMEONE SHOW ME A REAL VOLK HAN MATCH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacee215 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no more evidence that Volk Han's matches were works than any other fighter. His fights are listed in the same sources as others from the era. Deleting his entire fight record from his Wiki pages based on WP:OR is clearly highly disruptive. The fight record that was deleted was sourced in the same way as every other MMA fighter record on Wikipedia. Per WP:VERIFY we need to go by what the sources say.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I dont know how else to say this, but you are either wrong and have limited knowledge on the subject or wikipedia may wish to consider IQ checks. Sherdog has already been considered as a non reliable source. Everytime a new pro wrestling organization pops up do you have to be told its fake? No. I can tell a fake match any day of the week and in fact the average MMA/pro wrestling fan can too. Its common knowledge. Volk Han is of that category. He is not Dan Henderson, Dan Severn or Ken Shamrock. I'd furthermore like to clarify one thing thats being said " i think Volk Han only was in worked matches ." I take particular offense to this and I consider this to be a personal attack on my intelligence when it is obvious and apparent that most pro wrestling and MMA fans can tell a worked matched. Why would I be considered less than that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacee215 (talk • contribs) 17:10, November 18, 2021 (UTC)

So now you are outright insulting Wikipedian contributors who disagree with you? How low can you go? TrickShotFinn (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have no horse in this race. I am not an MMA fan or a wrestling fan. As an independent view on this, and only speaking from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, all claims require reliable sources as defined by WP:RS and WP:V. This is non-negotiable Wikipedia policy, and "Look at it yourself and decide" is NOT a reliable source as defined by policy. Jacee215, you need to desist from making changes to Volk Han's article unless you have reliable, published sources that clearly establish that your claims are valid. "I know it when I see it" is not good enough, and if you continue to try to edit the article in this manner without producing reliable sources where someone can read these claims, you will be prevented from doing so via a block. Produce reliable, independent, sources or drop the matter. --Jayron32 17:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Except that the sources used to prove volk hans fights IE sherdog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#Sherdog.com are not considered reliable. In reality whats happening here is this. Im saying prove it, and u guys are saying prove it. But i shouldnt have to prove anything when there hasnt been any reliable sources that he is a fighter. By your logic we should delete Volk Hans record until someone can prove its real. I 100% agree this, and this was my original logic but apparently the unreliable sherdog is enough when your name is Volk Han.

Of course, we can go with tapology, mixedmartialarts.com,, MMA-Core . Though Tapology incorrectly lists 1991-1994 fights. Also, what about other RINGS folks? It's not just Volk Han, y'know. There are other fighters in RINGS, who are equally in compromised situation by your claims. Don't they need verification too? Also, it should be brought to attention that Jacee brought up Ken Shamrock, who had fights in Pancrase, and there are sources saying that their fights there worked? -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You could be you'd also be wrong because [All 3 of those sites cite each other but nothing else] and are not considered reliable. And i never said I didnt wish to address those other people but with all due respect If we can not collectively recognize that Volk Han was 100% fake how are we gonna recognize that Dan Severn was 97% real At this current moment we live in a world of fiction where reality is unattainable(apparently), because no one really say volk han was a fighter.Jacee215 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Enough. We've gone over this at MMA Notable - we can prove Ken Shamrock had fake fights with citations and we can prove Pancrase had fake fights with citations. Now you are ignoring what you are told! Ergo you can prove 97% of Dan Severn's fights were real with citations and to end this Han charade you need to prove Volk Han had fake fights with citations and you have to prove RINGS had fake fights with citations. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

EXCEPT @admin this is a flat out lie what he says here There is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE between Ken Shamrock Dan Severn and Volk han note
note that he is trying to deflect the microscope from volk han

1. Dan Severn's record is support by reliable sources
2. Ken Shamrock like wise
3. More than 1 source which is considered extremely reliable in fact
4. It's funny how we can't just provide something really good like these two above for Volk Han

Is it because sources of this quality can not be produced?

Regarding ESPN, that's incorrect. Volk Han is listed in Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira's fight record in ESPN. Infact, I found Volk Han's unfinished ESPN profile. The other dubious RINGS almuni - like Andrei Kopylov (Han's RINGS Russia Teammate) and Kiyoshi Tamura (whom Han had many famous worked fights with) - are there too. TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

perfect much appreciated I've deleted Volk Hans except for his match with Nog which Your source is good enough for me let me know if u find anything else for the others you already know though.Jacee215 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, he did the delete bonanza at Volk Han again, despite using incomplete fight record at ESPN.TrickShotFinn (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, ScottishFinnishRadish reverted. :) -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Also, that Maeda fight is highly selective. It is a bleed-over from 1994 Shoot Wrestling era as it was part of a tournament. Even the comments in the video say so. I know visual evidence is pointless here, but just for reference, he are two fights after RINGS adapted the KOK rules (basically contemporary MMA rules); the 1999 fight against Cvetkov and the 2001 fight against Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira. My pence;

• The 1999 Cvetko Cvetkov (KOK Rules) seems real enough/like a actual MMA fight. Though, Cvetkov doesn't look like too capable of a fighter - if anything, this creates a impression that Han was pitted against a easy fights during 1999-2001. Which would make sense, considering how close Han was to top brass and if he wanted to protect his image. Regardless, I doubt that fight is a "pro-wrestling style work" (fixed maybe, but not a show) based on lack of dramatics (i.e last minute escapes) and different pacing than the Dick Fry and Tamura ones Jacee used at MMA Notablity.
• Same with Nogueira fight. I don't see anything deviating from a typical MMA fight. Though personally, I get slight feeling that Nog may have been ordered to go easy on Han by the brass. But that's a job for verifiable sources.

That said, there are contemporary, active MMA organizations guilty of comparable shady booking, so the term "work" can be awfully vague in this sense. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

I think this assessment by his strongest supporter should be inditement enough. Upon review of the evidence his strongest supporter could bring nothing in his defense neither could he deny the allegations. ie Han is a work and a half and I dont have aynthin to prove otherwise. Jacee215 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide reliable sources stating that his fights were "work." Without that there is no way such a claim is getting into the article, nor can edits be made assuming it as fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hows that? If he is listed as a mixed martial artists fighter shouldnt that need to be sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacee215 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@admins: Do backhanded comments count as a personal attack? TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jacee: It's not that I'm that much of a fan of Han, its your relentless hate***er that has bought us here. TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's really not, I thought my delete was the obvious move in 2020. What brought us here was this, sloppy article edits with little oversight and crap sources by people who have no idea on the subject. That's the truth, if that Volk Han article was written today, by non bias semi knowledgeable people none of this would be this way. But because it was written quite some time ago before we have some of the sources we have now and it stood uncontested for so long it you actually start to think it's real with the fact that Volk Han may have actually been a popular guy. But in the end [Opinions dont change reality] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacee215 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black, Jacee. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You should stop responding and let others review the thread. If the back and forth continues it will become too long for anyone to bother reading. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I shouldn't even be here per se. TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You're on thin ice, Jacee215. If I were an admin, I would block you right now for incivility. See item 1 of Wikipedia:Things that should not be surprising. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 18:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This should be an immediate block. Telling someone they may wish to consider [[Eugenics| IQ checks]] is absolutely unacceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Jacee215 blocked 31 hours for this completely unacceptable edit, hoping we can get their attention to what is acceptable here. —valereee (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You know a user is bad when they inspire you to become an adopter. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 20:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just for the record. —valereee (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Just for the caution/future reference if problems persist: User:Jacee215 also uses User:100.11.240.111 (see Special:Contributions/100.11.240.111) and possibly User:100.34.164.49 (which he likely used to create the Draft:Takaku Fuke entry, based on it being followed by Jacee215 in the entry's history) as his handle. (Redacted). So if Japanese Pro Wrestling / MMA pages related to RINGS alumni (esp. Volk Han - his favoured target) gets vandalized by somebody close to aforementioned location, it might be Jacee. Further ways to tell him is his writing style, as he alters writing style between responses - sometimes using good grammar, capitalization and punctuation and then with random capitalization and punctuation, with lots of unnecessary/clumsy spacing. He often also forgets to use a signature. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related

Jacee215 is accusing you of being involved and stating he did not make personal attacks. User talk:Jacee215#November 2021 I think further sanctions and/or education may be in order. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 20:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@JulieMinkai, oh, that is pretty funny. Unfortunately they've probably turned me into an involved admin by insulting me, which is always a useful trick for bad actors. :) Someone else will come along. —valereee (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Just curious, but are you actually friends with TrickShotFinn? Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 21:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@JulieMinkai, no, don't know them IRL and as far as I know have never interacted here on wiki or anywhere else online. —valereee (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually I'm little confused if Jacee was referring to me or User:NEDOCHAN. The IQ thing was direct response to NEDOCHAN's post, not mine. To me, Jacee just backhandedly referred to me as Volk Han's biggest fanboy that finds no fault in him - when I made comments about that video of his. As for Valeree, the Jacee thread at ANI was the first time the user came to my attention. Judging from Valeree's contributions, we both deal with very different subjects, so I fail to see an overlap. And unlike Valeree, my relationships don't seem quite a smooth sailing. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever interacted with NEDOCHAN, either. —valereee (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I thought we were in a committed relationship ;). NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Shh. My husband is due home any minute. —valereee (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

...check this out. It's pretty hilarious. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

//Calling 1-600-DOCTORB. El_C 10:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, snap. They got you. Pretty embarrassing, but it's okay, honeybunch. Everyone needs a thesaurus to come up with "casting aspersions" and "guidelines of engagement". —valereee (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A sign not all hope is lost

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just for my further education, what recent edit did I just (Bell (surname)) revert? Doug butler (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You undid someone's promotional spam clickbait advertisement (presumably) that had an external link disguised (or attempted to be disguised) as a wikilink to a Wikipedia article. Well done! ;) 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BDD5:3580:625A:3321 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Doug butler, you correctly reverted an inappropriate external link that displayed as Chris Bell (blockchain), Metaverse landlord in virtual reality. Disambiguation pages about a common surname should only list notable people with Wikipedia biographies. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew it was not legit, but without clicking on it (not smart) didn't know implications Doug butler (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everything's happening all at once!

I did improvements on the Horn of Africa article, mainly since its was incorrectly structured for a geographical region (template), it looked more like a country article rather then usual Geo article template. I addressed the issues in the talk page. However user M.Bitton reverted my changes [58] and asked me to motivate them, which I did. After that user did three reverts [59], [60], [61] going against NPOV insisting that the “Horn of Africa Region” is also called “Somali Peninsula” which is incorrect. There is clear distinction of the two which has been explained to user. The geographical region “Horn of Africa” consisting of four countries, stretching far beyond the peninsula. The “Somali peninsula” lies within the Horn of Africa region and is the landmass stretching out of the Somalia coast. User persists reverting and adding this same thing to the article. By doing the three latest changes user has also broken three revert rule. Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Leechjoel9: whenever you post about someone at ANI, you need to notify them at their user talk page. I've done so already for M.Bitton. Firefangledfeathers 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have done so correctly two times, user keeps deleting my ANI notifications (two times) and edit warring warnings (two times). See diffs [62],[63] and the warning [64],[65]

I am sorry. I should have looked at the user talk history. It's ok for M.Bitton to remove those notices per WP:BLANKING. Firefangledfeathers 17:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the content itself, but it's clear from a review of the history that M.Bitton has not broken 3RR. They are right at the limit. The "Somali peninsula" descriptor, right or wrong, has been present in the article for a long time. Per WP:BRD, Leechjoel9 should really be avoiding reverts and working to build consensus at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers 17:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"Leechjoel9" forgot to mention that: 1) having failed to remove the "horn of Africa" mention from the Eritrea article (they even disrupted the RfC and tried to reopen it after it was closed), they turned their attention to the "horn of Africa" article that they butchered. 2) I restored the names section that they removed simply because they didn't like it. 3) ANI is not for content disputes and like I said, the fact that the Horn of Africa is also known as the Somali Peninsula is something that can easily be sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to blanking but it’s not a good Wikipedia behaviour. A practise that seems to be common by the user. User should be able to take critisism and warning without deleting them from their talk pages, especially active ANI comments. Regarding the conflict, the user is misinterpreting the source and implying that they are the same when they actually are not, which is breaching the WP:NPOV and pushing for a view that is not true. These two are not equivalent to each other. It has possibly remained so in past wrongfully since somebody has pushed for this view or that users have not picked it up. However as I can see in the talk history many have objected or questioned to also use term “Somali Peninsula” since its not the same as” the “Horn of Africa Region”. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"Everyone is entitled to blanking but it’s not a good Wikipedia behaviour." I'm rather surprised to hear you say this, given this. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Plastering a user's talk page with the same warning over and over again is disruptive and has nothing to do with criticism. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Leechjoel9 has just broken the 3R rule. M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect, that last issue of yesterda has nothing to do with this issue so stop trying to portray it as such. I asked for references that support your claim, until you find such pleas stop pushing your view which is against WP:NPOV. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9, you have indeed broken 3RR, which applies "whether involving the same or different material". A self-reversion here would be a wise move. Firefangledfeathers 19:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Leechjoel9: Stop editing my comments! M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has intentionally modified you comments. Please stick to the issue.Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Intentionally or otherwise, you have a habit of editing comments, including your own after someone has replied to them. I'll let the admin deal with the "issues". M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree but I have sorted it out to avoid any misunderstandings. The view that’s it’s incorrect still stands and I’ll re-add if no legitimate reason to not remove it appears. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at Leechjoel9's talk page, and it seems he has a history of edit warring and he has been sent to ANI twice before. WP:BOOMERANG? Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not have an edit warring history. Rather there have been disputes (related to one article, same topic) were a user randomly created ANIs to prevent users from editing some articles on here (especially Horn of Africa related articles). If you look at those ANIs they have been based on disputes of content and not been about edit warrings, and issues have been controversial (like this one) where users have been trying to push views against WP:NPOV. None of the issues have been regarding misconduct. The issues have also been resorted within those ANIs and in the disputed articles. A thing that would be good to also look into is also all the blanked:removed ANIs or warning of M.Bitton, didn’t took to long to find another removed ANI [66] Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s not how I would characterise this ANI thread per Drmies closing. I don’t think you come out well there. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Well it would be good to also look to why that ANI was created in the first place and not only the summary. Of course the admin needs to look at all issues brought up by filing party and respond to those claims, so of course the summary will also include the acclaimed edit warring. The acclaimed edit warring in that case was ONE revert. The rest of that case was purely about topic content, please feel free to read it. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve read it and Drmies correctly summarises thus: “User:Leechjoel9 acted improperly in removing the name from Asmara, inventing a reason for removal that doesn't agree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but they said they'd stop doing that, and not a moment too soon: that politically motivated removal could have led to a block or a topic ban. The example does show a propensity for battleground behavior, and if that picks up again measures might have to be taken”. Down playing rather than owning that accurate conclusion doesn’t help you. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Then explain this (from your TP archives):

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eritrea. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

== Eritrea edit warring ==

You were notified about the applicable discretionary sanctions on 28 January 2021. These edits show unacceptable edit warring:

• 07:53, 27 September 2021
• 07:51, 28 September 2021
• 10:17, 30 September 2021
• 11:13, 30 September 2021
• 18:04, 30 September 2021

Warning: You will be topic banned if further disruption occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 21:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Now your mixing up incidents, the ANI had nothing to do with the incident you brought up above, the ani was about population estimates, this one above was about lead sentence of an article. So your conclusion is citing the exact same summary. For matter of facts, the user M.Bitton Was involved in that exact same dispute above and reverted several edits of mine and making disruptive edits in that exact same talk page, where I initiated and created an RFC. The other user was edit warring and I restored the version (status quo of one year+). I was the one reporting the user making the edits, and I also resolved the issue by creating an RFC which resulted in consensus. I also warned M.Bitton in the past for that incident, however as you can see the users also removed that warning. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Since you insist on making up stuff, I will ping Drmies and see what they think. M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Note: "Leechjoel9" has a habit of changing their comments after other editors have replied to them, so don't surprised if some of the replies don't make much sense. M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not insisted in making up stuff, majority of that ANI was about content dispute, even though it brought up one issue explicitly referring at edit warring. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that’s just not true. I’m going to repeat once again from Drmies’ closing: "User:Leechjoel9 acted improperly in removing the name from Asmara, inventing a reason for removal that doesn't agree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but they said they'd stop doing that, and not a moment too soon: that politically motivated removal could have led to a block or a topic ban. The example does show a propensity for battleground behavior, and if that picks up again measures might have to be taken" DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Since Leechjoel9 seems to be reading-comprehension impaired, I have highlighted parts of the quote for clarity. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 22:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have read it more than once. I responded accordingly in that ANI as ive done here.Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• What a mess, and now there's a block. El C, I suggested months ago that an 1R restriction might be appropriate. How would you feel about tacking that on? Drmies (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@JulieMinkai: can you please not? Also, if you quote, quote and link, don't just copy like that. It's confusing. Thanks. El_C 23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything's happening all at once! Struck as I was writing the above. Funny. Drmies, I'm trying to ween myself off of the more custom'y sanctions lately, but I could see supporting such a proposal. I guess it would depend on Leechjoel9's un/productivity (of which I know little). In the case of productivity, I could see a 1RR restriction as being useful in that unlike a TBAN, they'd still be able to contribute to the topic area. El_C 23:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9 AE/3RR block

I've AE blocked (logged) Leechjoel9 for 2 weeks, per WP:HORN, for violating WP:3RR on the... Horn of Africa page itself. As I noted on their talk page (here), continuing with this kind of behaviour once the block expires is almost certain to lead to a WP:TBAN of an undetermined duration. El_C 23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely going in the ANI Hall of Fame. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 23:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

JulieMinkai, please! Only I may spam ANI with nonsense. El_C 23:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Only you and EEng, it seems. Please don't open another ANI thread about me Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 00:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I taught him everything he knows. EEng 06:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Save it for your therapist, buddy! El_C 10:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Steelpillow beats a dead horse

Mark Lincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been grossly abusing another editor despite warnings, etc. This is to request an indef block.

Here is a (possibly incomplete) history:

• First round, 10 Oct: Abuse 19:02, Warning 19:58
• Second round, 11 Oct: Abuse 18:36(It was not even the abused editor who had reverted him, it was me), Abuse 18:46, Abuse 19:10, Warning 19:34, Warning 19:37, Warning 20:10
• Warnings ignored: Further abuse 21:40, Oct 11

What really gets me is that by now the abused editor had made it plain that he had serious off-wiki troubles, but Mark Lincoln didn't give a damn, he just kept piling in there. Mark then went off in a huff, and the abused user asked me to bring it here if he returned. He just has:[67][68].[last diff corrected 11:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)]

Please can you indef block the guy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, @Steelpillow:, I'm not seeing anything actionable in your diffs. That's not to say the condescension and passive aggressive nature of the posts wouldn't be frustrating. I just don't see blockable attacks here. Tiderolls 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: When I let the abused editor know I had posted here, two other highly experienced editors sent me public thanks. Over and over the guy does not listen, does not pull back; what action would you suggest to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or are you suggesting we sit back and let those policies burn? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant no criticism of your posting here and, to be honest, I see your point. It's just my opinion that the diffs you posted don't rise to the level of abuse. I checked my response to be sure, and no, there was no suggestion to let policies burn. Tiderolls 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Um. Whether or not I might have chosen the wrong word is beside the point. Have you no suggestion as to what should be done to make our policies stick? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The vituperation of some is astounding. I have made it very clear I am not going to be editing Wikipedia any longer. It is perfectly ok with me if Wikipedia prefers to honor the unsupported opinions of some of the persons who have pull while ignoring carefully researched fact. I was taught long ago that History was a serious subject and there were Historiographic standards. If Wikipedia is happy making the opinions of those who desire to make their wishes more important than proven reality that is Wikipedia's business. I have no intention of disputing the desires of Wikipedia to propagate said opinion as fact. That some of the persons who have the ear of Wikipedia are still pursuing their actions in this matter is most droll. It is also incredibly vindictive and perhaps infantile. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I was deluded enough to believe them while it has become abundantly clear they are not honored by Wikipedia if they are inconvenient to the opinion of those persons that matter. Their retribution is still being pursued despite my having made it clear that I have no intention of continuing to edit Wikipedia. In fact I recently refused Soumya-8974’s invitation to edit Wikiproject Rocketry despite a life long interest in the subject and my possession of a large library on the subject. For those wishing to beat a dead horse for their personal gratification, I say go ahead. I could care less. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• This seems petty. An editor had apparently spent a significant amount of time researching a topic and was presenting a concrete correction backed by reliable sources. They appear to have been met with vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources, and were repeatedly spammed with NPA warnings when they expressed their reasonable frustration. This was a poor showing and I feel for the editor, who was actually driven to the point of giving up on contributing to the project as they had lost faith in it. This was an unfortunate episode, and while it wasn't handled ideally by the editor in question, it wasn't handled ideally by those opposing them either. The editor was repeatedly accused of beating a dead horse, even though they had done research and provided sources, and yet here we are, reporting them and asking for an indefinite block over comments that aren't even actionable to begin with, after they had already expressed their intent to leave Wikipedia? That's not even beating a dead horse, that's just grave dancing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Sorry, but you are totally misled by him. The objections raised against him have been many, detailed, well-cited and their relevance explained at great length - several times over by four extremely experienced editors, one of whom is an admin. Do his accusations of "them" conspiring against him not sound an all-too-familiar alarm bell for you? Evidently not, for you choose instead to believe him at face value. So now, please go read this initial discussion and this much longer one, then come back here and explain how they show your "vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources". You should also revert this edit of mine to restore some of Mark's apparently civil (by your lights) words of wisdom on a talk page, and perhaps to censure those editors who sent me public thanks for redacting them. Also, please explain to us how continued participation in discussions, including this very one, constitutes not returning to Wikipedia. Just a voice from beyond the grave, huh? He says he has stopped editing articles, he does not say he has stopped or will stop passing insults. He is an extreme pedant, the distinction is significant; he is still here, arguing on. What would this discussion matter to him if he were really never coming back? His apparent intent to leave well alone has proved as empty as his grave and his accusations of conspiracy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been following this issue from the beginning at WikiProject Aircraft, so it is not a surprise that it has ended up here. User:Mark Lincoln has been persistently uncivil towards several editors, including one very tolerant admin in particular, as noted above. His consistent insistence that there is a widespread Wikipedia conspiracy to keep "the truth" about the 1930s British airship designation system's use of dots, certainly raised my concerns about his ability to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way. His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings. His posts seem to quickly devolve into personal attacks, conspiracy theories and especially that he is a victim of some global plot against WP:THETRUTH. As noted above he has many times stated that he will quit editing and not participate any longer, but he has not carried that out. After attempting to participate in some of these discussions myself, in an attempt to contribute to a consensus, I was forced to give up as this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION. If he would carry through on his oft-repeated threat to stop editing, then I don't think any further action would be warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged as an involved editor, my attempt to suggest a resolution was not acknowledged, in fact it was met with another TLDR rant with no paragraph breaks. At that point I moved on to more constructive editing.

The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words. More importantly (IMO) is the editor's lack of understanding of how Wikipedia community editing works. If they have stopped editing and left the project then the problem is solved. I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary to date

My it's gone quiet. TL;DR perhaps. In summary, then: Three highly experienced core members of a significant WikiProject (WikiProject Aircraft) have come here to complain about a new editor. "His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings.", "this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION.", "The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words." -- none of them my words.

Two admins have responded. Tide rolls has criticised my wording here but not followed up their shallow-skimming opinion on the issue itself. Swarm also failed to do their homework and chose to believe the disruptive editor, for reasons which they remain silent on despite clear in-your-face evidence to the contrary. "I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue" - not my words again, but I share the sentiment wholeheartedly. When I say to you both that Your personal obsessions are devoid of factual nature, you should stop your obstreperous obfuscation, the guy should be let off to avoid offending the profound dignity of the almighty Wiki Gods Tide Rolls and Swarm, whatever their actual names, it seems that fiction is acceptable and fact is not to said Wiki Gods, and [assuming you now censure me for all that] Tide Rolls and Swarm you appear by your intrusion and threats here to be pursuing a vendetta against myself, you will of course be quite happy about that and not regard it as any way insulting, injurious, or contrary to WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA -- because you are not sloppy hypocrites, are you, you genuinely followed the diffs I originally posted, saw every word of it in there, and stand by the utter crap words of profound wisdom you wrote straight afterwards. Right?

Hey, can a real admin do something about this, please? Ban me for whatever takes your fancy if it helps you sleep at night, but do something about the guy who came up with all those insults in the first place, that's all I an asking. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• You're doing a good impression of the editor about which you complained. Tiderolls 16:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Following a comment I made at the aircraft project I was attacked by Mark Lincoln for not agreeing with him, these have been linked above and I was accused of lying, making things up and being obstreperous whatever that is. I was then called a wiki god for bringing up the word consensus which went against his years of being an expert on the subject. He seems to have a dislike for people not using real names and has made a few digs like "Enjoy writing fiction if you wish to appease MilborneOne what ever his actual name." I was also attacked on the R101 page although I had not edited it since August. I returned from a break from a bereavement as an escape only to harshly attacked for not agreeing with Mark Lincoln. He is clearly not a team player, doesnt understood the consensual way wikipedia works and attacks everybody that disagrees with him. I would suggest he is blocked until he shows signs of being able to contribute in a team environment and show respect to others. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I should point out that User:MilborneOne is the very tolerant admin whom I mentioned above. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• What was that thing that was repeatedly said about the reported user? Something about beating a dead horse? You've successfully driven the editor off the project, which is unfortunate, and yet you continue to provoke and antagonize them endlessly, then you use their responses to further justify why they should be blocked. It's really not a good look. I'm not saying there was nothing wrong with Lincoln's comments, just that if he's quitting the project, move on with your lives and let him leave. There's no preventative angle at that point, thus the complaint is inactionable. Continuing to beat this dead horse, which Lincoln was ironically accused of doing multiple times, and then reporting his provoked responses as more evidence of wrongdoing is patently ridiculous. Go find an article to improve and leave the dude alone. He's clearly not some troll who's only here to antagonize you, he's just an editor who got frustrated with a content dispute and is now so fed up that all he wants to do is quit the project. Continuing to antagonize him is bordering on harassment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Who is the "you" in your rant? The aggrieved admin MilborneOne, me Steelpillow whom he asked to report the incident here, the others who have contributed here Ahunt, Nimbus227, one or two others who contributed at the time but have stayed away from this discussion, or some combination of all those highly experienced editors? And where is your evidence that I/we/"you"-unspecified "drove him off" ... "the project?" Unlike me, you have neither referred to nor posted a single diff or link. No, you are factually wrong yet again; when half a dozen editors politely explained that his edits were unacceptable, and why, he became abusive before responding to warnings by flouncing off in a huff. Here's] one of the diffs again, posted on an uninvolved editor's talk page claiming he has left Wikipedia entirely - just one example of his coming back over and over to repeat the claim that he is not coming back. He very explicitly states that this is because Wikipedia does not respect WP:THETRUTH as he sees it - in other words he is verifiably WP:NOTHERE, a fact pointed out by one of the many involved editors whom you choose to ignore.

  Now for the sting. Was he really insulting? That is key to our argument, so I set up a little experiment. I am confident the other involved editors will confirm that insults are not my style; go back and you can see clearly that I deliberately prodded you and Tide rolls with Mark Lincoln's insults and wild accusations that you claim are not insults, to see how you would react. You did so beautifully. You both felt sufficiently insulted to be suckered into trading like for like. Tide rolls, bless them, even pointed out how well I had spun the impression. Thus your claims, that they are not insulting, are exposed by your own actions for the hypocrisy they are. Your comments here are now very visibly not evidence-based arguments intended to uphold WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but mere trading of opinion-based insults and wild accusations, and a desire to shoot the messenger (that's me, remember?). I just wanted to draw that point out for everybody to see. And now, if you don't mind, I will return to my usual polite self.

  — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This is getting a bit bizarre. I'm not making any abstract arguments, I simply read the discussions that were linked to here and gave an honest assessment, which you seem to be unable or unwilling to listen to. I explicitly stated that I was not defending Lincoln's comments, only that he struck me as an editor who was frustrated by a legitimate content dispute and was quitting the project, thus there is no preventative justification for blocking him, and indeed even reporting him here and continuing to be excessively argumentative is counterproductive. Like, this isn't high philosophy, I'm just saying to leave the guy alone and let him leave like he said he is going to. It's not rocket science here. Now you're engaging in pedantry, weirdly talking about how you're "trolling", and accusing me of "ranting". You filed a frivolous, inactionable report, asking for a draconian admin action which is not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Two admins reviewed your report in good faith and found it to be inactionable, and your response was to become hostile, from the very beginning. It's been several days, Lincoln is apparently already long gone, and yet you insist on continuing to litigate and draw out this Kafkaesque complaint. The editor has left, yet you're still here arguing over pedantry. See WP:WINNING, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT, WP:PREVENTATIVE, WP:GRAVEDANCE, WP:REHASH, WP:BLUDGEON, etc. Clearly nothing's going to come of this, and it was a waste of time. That's okay, but please find something constructive to do rather than "trolling AN/I". This is definitely one of the stranger episodes I've seen here in a while. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I would accept you verdict were it not for the facts that:

• Four editors, all highly experienced, have argued the case against Mark Lincoln.
• One admin is in favour of sanctions, two are against.

There is patently no clear consensus yet. Hence I have appealed for more admin voices here.

Your argument is flawed in other ways. Of course Lincoln is gone - for now. He lurked on long enough to contribute to this discussion, before realising that acting the absent editor while it concludes is his best strategy. (Is he still lurking now? If he reappears once this is over, would you change your verdict? I have a feeling we will find out in due course.) You also fail to address several points which other involved editors, including a fellow admin, have all raised.

My actions were designed to draw out the hypocrisy, and hence falsehood, of "I don't find such words insulting" arguments, which your latest reply reinforces nicely, thank you. But yes, I do owe you both an apology for winding you up, I hope that you can appreciate it was in what the majority of contributors here regard as a good cause. I can assure you that no personal hostility is involved and I will not be doing so again.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The above confirmation that you were playing some sort of rhetorical game like that just makes me feel Swarm was right, and the problem lies with you, not the other editor. This is not helpful behavior. Your "gambit" was to mislead, which means any trust in your version of events is completely eroded. I strongly suggest you let this thread be and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Thank you for coming here, at least somebody has responded to my request. But you are wrong about my behaviour, I was very careful not to mislead, I stated explicitly to Swarm & co. that "you genuinely followed the diffs I originally posted, saw every word of it in there"; they knew perfectly well I was throwing Lincoln's insults back at them to provoke their reactions. I will be very happy to back out once the corroborative comments of other involved editors are being taken seriously and not just being ignored or scoffed at. Perhaps you could do them the honour, now that you are here?

@MilborneOne: Sorry to call on you again, but do you feel that I have failed to represent your case in a useful way? Am I now untrustworthy here? Happy to bow out if my presence here is now doing more harm than good.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say your presence here is now doing more harm than good, honestly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As the OP I just contacted the involved WikiProject members. Our consensus on what to do about the incident has changed; enough of us now feel this is going nowhere and is no longer worth pursuing. I am happy to oblige. My thanks to those who participated, even if we did not all see eye to eye. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Your report was declined from the very beginning, it wasn't actionable and it hasn't ever been going anywhere from the start. We've been doing nothing but repeatedly trying to explain this to you the whole time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

What.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user MR73 is involved in disrupting and edit-warring at Lana Del Rey discography. The user has been asked to stop and discuss on the talk page of the article, yet he/she continued to revert claiming that he/she doesn't see a discussion page.--Harout72 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me how can i see the discussion page that you're talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MR73 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the page that you will need to discuss on. It's on the main page, you would choose the tab marked "Talk". RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

And here's a visual aid just in case. 78.28.55.139 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.