Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) →AE decision: replying to your comment here, rather than at WT:RFA, since I don't want to sidetrack that too much. |
→Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction: problem is nobody had time for it — in the interests of expediency and with pragmatic considerations in mind |
||
Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
:::This makes my wiki-life easier. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish#top|talk]]) 18:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC) |
:::This makes my wiki-life easier. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish#top|talk]]) 18:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::I made my comment at WT:RFA ''after'' I read the closure of the AE discussion; so as far as I am concerned, it makes no difference. An IBAN is pretty mild as sanctions go; I'd say it's the mildest of our sanctions. There's multiple current admins with extant sanctions against them that are more severe. FWIW, if I had had the time to propose an outcome at AE, I would have recommended a one-way IBAN, so your editing would have been largely unaffected. I think the community will recognize that you work in a difficult topic area, and that some conflict is inevitable. I stand by my statement that your contributions to the flareup that resulted in this sanction were pretty much the only ones approaching the situation from a policy-based perspective; almost all other contributions to those discussions showed evidence of stonewalling and/or advocacy of a specific POV. That said, I won't push you to do something you don't want; but it ''was'' you who suggested that more editors with experience in conflict-ridden areas needed to run at RFA. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 19:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC) |
::::I made my comment at WT:RFA ''after'' I read the closure of the AE discussion; so as far as I am concerned, it makes no difference. An IBAN is pretty mild as sanctions go; I'd say it's the mildest of our sanctions. There's multiple current admins with extant sanctions against them that are more severe. FWIW, if I had had the time to propose an outcome at AE, I would have recommended a one-way IBAN, so your editing would have been largely unaffected. I think the community will recognize that you work in a difficult topic area, and that some conflict is inevitable. I stand by my statement that your contributions to the flareup that resulted in this sanction were pretty much the only ones approaching the situation from a policy-based perspective; almost all other contributions to those discussions showed evidence of stonewalling and/or advocacy of a specific POV. That said, I won't push you to do something you don't want; but it ''was'' you who suggested that more editors with experience in conflict-ridden areas needed to run at RFA. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 19:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::The problem is nobody had time for it, including myself — not for all of that. But something had to be done, based as mentioned before, on evidence that lacked cohesiveness and concision. I. of course, am pleased Tryptofish is happy with the IBAN, and if anyone wants to use that against them, send em my way. This may not be the prefect remedy, but it was undertaken in the interests of expediency and with pragmatic considerations in mind. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:46, 20 May 2019
Newsletters.
Check RfAs.
WP:ADREV.
Statistics on most-viewed neuroscience pages.
User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Neurology
Commons:Category:Smilies
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
MPants
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.
(Re: [1])
That's fine, I'm not going to revert you again. I thought you had misread the page history, but thanks for explaining. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Ivan, I'm sincerely very glad that you understand. And I appreciate you making things clear to me here. I promise you that I am trying to be respectful to you and to all of the other administrators and functionaries who have evaluated the situation, and I'm sure that a close examination of what I added back will show that I have been careful not to interfere with any of it. But, although we do not make different policies for different editors and Wikipedia is not therapy, I am mindful that this is an editor who is at the high-functioning end of the autism/Aspergers spectrum, and that he was understandably upset. It is in his best interests to be able to read what various editors said, when everyone has had a chance to calm down. There has been entirely too much knee-jerk reacting going on.
- Speaking more to everyone looking on than to you personally, I am considering opening an ArbCom case to examine some of the administrative actions that were taken. I really believe that the oversighted comment, whatever it was, should never have been made, but that it was largely caused by the entirely out-of-process extension of the initial block in what was entirely a punitive and frankly inappropriate manner. That doesn't excuse whatever was oversighted, but it is still a problem. --Tryptofish, t(talk) 20:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, the content you re-added was all removed by MPants himself, in the edit that has now been oversighted (I saw it before it was oversighted - in fact, I reported it). I have now removed all of that stuff again as MPants wanted - he had the right to remove it. I have also restored the most recent additions by other people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- You have overreacted. That was really counterproductive. Yes, we can get all "by-the-book" and hide behind the fact that he did it himself, but he did it in a moment of anger. You should reconsider. And lift the full protection, because we now have Bishonen editing through full protection while no one else can. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yeah, Boing, I pointed that out already. I think probably we should all stop trying to figure out what should and shouldn't be on the page, as we have a frustrated editor rage-quitting along with many administrators intervening, and of course I'm partially at fault for that. I'm going to leave it alone unless anything else abusive is written, and I'd encourage everyone else to do the same (I don't know which version is currently visible, I'm not endorsing anything, only the oversight banner is compulsory at this point).
- As for Arbcom, Tryp, go ahead and prep a case (I think you should, regarding a series of less-than-optimal admin actions) but may I suggest holding off on it for a few days? There is already some motion on this behind the scenes.
- (after ec) It's entirely possible Bish doesn't realize the page has been temporarily protected, the "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO EDIT THIS FULLY PROTECTED PAGE" message does not show up for edit conflicts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Ivan. I'll just say for now that I'm sure that Bish didn't realize it, and I pinged her just to make her aware. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- The protection was only temporary so I could fix the talk page without multiple edit conflicts while everyone was just guessing at what the oversighted version looks like. I said so in the protection log. And as you can see, I have unprotected it now. And no, I think the error was in restoring material that MPants himself removed from his own talk page - sure he was angry, but he had the right to remove it all, and it's not for
those who didn't see the oversighted versions (I did)others to override his decisions for him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to take some time and reflect on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, and my first reflections make me wonder what we're actually arguing about, as all I'm trying to do is uphold what MPants wanted. So a question if I may - do you think MPants had the right to remove material from his talk page? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- That misses the point. He did that in anger. See what I said in my first reply to Ivan, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understood the thing about it being done in anger (and yes, it was). But I don't think it's right for someone else to judge whether or not he really wanted it removed and make his decision for him - I think we should respect the decision he actually made, however we might interpret his mood. If you disagree and think it is right to second-guess what choice he might have made had he not been angry, and implement that, then I guess we'll just have to differ. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- To call what I did "second guessing" is inaccurate, and I dare say I know the editor better than you do. But you were pretty quick to revert, before even seeing the discussion between me and Ivan here, and to slap on full protection right after. That was a very aggressive use of the administrative privileges, basically to treat something done in anger as something you needed to treat as though it was a "right". I expect admins to understand that editors are, first and foremost, people. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe you do know him better than I, but I don't think that makes any difference and does not give you the right to override his decisions for him. As for the protection, I can accept it might not have been the best choice - and I'm happy to apologize it you think it was not an acceptable action. As for "I expect admins to understand that editors are, first and foremost, people", I have no idea where that came from or why you might think I don't understand that. Anyway, at this point, I think it's probably better to withdraw from this discussion - so I'm off to bed, and I bid you goodnight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I hope that things will be calmer in the morning. You keep framing it as "his decision", which although technically true is portraying something done in anger and haste as though it were something that required administrative action to preserve. You've now said at his talk page that there was nothing wrong with the content of what I put back, so I think that it's clear that I have carefully respected all of the issues involved with oversight. I was clearly and explicitly trying to give him the chance to look more thoughtfully at some helpful advice (as well as preserving the community reaction to the extended block, so it looks a little strange to see multiple admins seeming to want to make that less visible). I wasn't overriding his decision. I was trying to be helpful to him. I don't think that the knee-jerk reverts of my edits were really motivated by protecting MPants' decisions. They were saying: Tryptofish, you aren't an admin so don't mess with what admins have done. And the result is that we have most likely permanently lost a good editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Last thing I'll say is that you are wrong about my knees and my motives, and I was absolutely not saying "you aren't an admin so don't mess with what admins have done". Anyway, I really am off to bed now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't claim to know your motives. But the way that you used the admin tools looks the way that I described it. I'm going to add: I don't think that you are a bad person, nor a bad editor, nor a bad admin. But there was way too much hasty and emotional reacting over the past 24 hours or so, from many editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that perhaps the editor in question does trust you to decide what should appear on the talk page. Given that the content you want the editor to review appears in the page history, though, from the outside I feel it seems paternalistic to decide that it should also be visible on the current version of the talk page. But of course you are the best to judge your relationship with the editor. Perhaps you can send a message to the editor to review the posts you recommend? isaacl (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Isaac. I debated how much to put back after I was reverted, and I decided to leave a friendly comment with a diff of my own earlier message, and another edit where I put a diff to the edit where I put the material back, and I guess that's enough for now. As for paternalistic, I feel like that misrepresents what I was doing in an effort to be helpful, and it only looks that way in the context of it being argued over. What I did was really very innocuous, but it was met with a backlash that was pretty much disconnected from considering the situation from a human point of view. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate you feel that way, and like I said I don't know what your relationship with the editor is, nor how your edit was interpreted. Although this has no bearing on the other editor's reaction, if it were me, I wouldn't want my own edits to my talk page to be reverted; I don't like people changing what I intended to publish, whether it was in a pique of anger or after long deliberation. I would find it kind of passive-aggressive for someone to revert me rather than talk to me about what they'd like me to look at. Of course, everyone may react differently... isaacl (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Passive-aggressive? Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, if you ever want me to re-consider something I've deleted from my talk page, please just leave me a note asking me to do so. Let me do any reverting that I feel is appropriate, rather than deciding I'd be better off with the material visible. Again, that's just me; I just feel more comfortable doing my own reverts on my talk page. (Not counting, of course, partial reversions which break up conversations that are contrary to talk page guidelines.) isaacl (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I fully understand that that's what you would want on your talk page. But this was a different situation. For one thing, I couldn't ask him via a note, because his talk page editing was removed so he couldn't respond to me. This was nothing like a typical WP:TPO situation. I don't want to discuss this any more. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, if you ever want me to re-consider something I've deleted from my talk page, please just leave me a note asking me to do so. Let me do any reverting that I feel is appropriate, rather than deciding I'd be better off with the material visible. Again, that's just me; I just feel more comfortable doing my own reverts on my talk page. (Not counting, of course, partial reversions which break up conversations that are contrary to talk page guidelines.) isaacl (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Passive-aggressive? Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate you feel that way, and like I said I don't know what your relationship with the editor is, nor how your edit was interpreted. Although this has no bearing on the other editor's reaction, if it were me, I wouldn't want my own edits to my talk page to be reverted; I don't like people changing what I intended to publish, whether it was in a pique of anger or after long deliberation. I would find it kind of passive-aggressive for someone to revert me rather than talk to me about what they'd like me to look at. Of course, everyone may react differently... isaacl (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Isaac. I debated how much to put back after I was reverted, and I decided to leave a friendly comment with a diff of my own earlier message, and another edit where I put a diff to the edit where I put the material back, and I guess that's enough for now. As for paternalistic, I feel like that misrepresents what I was doing in an effort to be helpful, and it only looks that way in the context of it being argued over. What I did was really very innocuous, but it was met with a backlash that was pretty much disconnected from considering the situation from a human point of view. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Last thing I'll say is that you are wrong about my knees and my motives, and I was absolutely not saying "you aren't an admin so don't mess with what admins have done". Anyway, I really am off to bed now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I hope that things will be calmer in the morning. You keep framing it as "his decision", which although technically true is portraying something done in anger and haste as though it were something that required administrative action to preserve. You've now said at his talk page that there was nothing wrong with the content of what I put back, so I think that it's clear that I have carefully respected all of the issues involved with oversight. I was clearly and explicitly trying to give him the chance to look more thoughtfully at some helpful advice (as well as preserving the community reaction to the extended block, so it looks a little strange to see multiple admins seeming to want to make that less visible). I wasn't overriding his decision. I was trying to be helpful to him. I don't think that the knee-jerk reverts of my edits were really motivated by protecting MPants' decisions. They were saying: Tryptofish, you aren't an admin so don't mess with what admins have done. And the result is that we have most likely permanently lost a good editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe you do know him better than I, but I don't think that makes any difference and does not give you the right to override his decisions for him. As for the protection, I can accept it might not have been the best choice - and I'm happy to apologize it you think it was not an acceptable action. As for "I expect admins to understand that editors are, first and foremost, people", I have no idea where that came from or why you might think I don't understand that. Anyway, at this point, I think it's probably better to withdraw from this discussion - so I'm off to bed, and I bid you goodnight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) In fact and without being flippant he was angry most of the time. Had it not been for the block it seems unlikely that he would have restored what he removed so surely leaving it off is nearest the status quo? Anyway, having been falsely accused of trolling for expressing concern about all of your actions, I am saying no more. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's the other way around: without the block he would not have removed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- And no, he is not someone who was angry all of the time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- To call what I did "second guessing" is inaccurate, and I dare say I know the editor better than you do. But you were pretty quick to revert, before even seeing the discussion between me and Ivan here, and to slap on full protection right after. That was a very aggressive use of the administrative privileges, basically to treat something done in anger as something you needed to treat as though it was a "right". I expect admins to understand that editors are, first and foremost, people. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understood the thing about it being done in anger (and yes, it was). But I don't think it's right for someone else to judge whether or not he really wanted it removed and make his decision for him - I think we should respect the decision he actually made, however we might interpret his mood. If you disagree and think it is right to second-guess what choice he might have made had he not been angry, and implement that, then I guess we'll just have to differ. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- That misses the point. He did that in anger. See what I said in my first reply to Ivan, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, and my first reflections make me wonder what we're actually arguing about, as all I'm trying to do is uphold what MPants wanted. So a question if I may - do you think MPants had the right to remove material from his talk page? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to take some time and reflect on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Re your request here, Tryptofish, I'd probably better leave any unprotection to the oversight fellows. But I do want to say that I'm suitably embarrassed at having written a greeting on User talk:MjolnirPants, when non-admins such as for instance yourself can't do it. I hesitated, for that reason, but it just seemed too sad to not say anything. And I'd encourage you in your plans to take the block extension to ArbCom. (I typed this message before I saw you complaining about my post above, and as it shows, Ivanvector, I was in fact aware of the full protection. The text goes pink! So perhaps I'll be taken to ArbCom before anybody else.) Bishonen | talk 21:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC).
- No problems whatsoever, Bish! You, for one, are entirely blameless. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I've dealt with some of this by email, but I guess it doesn't hurt to talk about some of the generalities here. One of the problems I can see, is that as an admin, if a right wing POV pusher sets up camp on some article and starts disrupting it, I've got the clout and street cred to do something about it. I probably wouldn't block them directly, but if I raised an ANI thread or some other report, or even said "do this again and there'll be a block", it would probably be treated with respect, even if everyone disagreed with it. For a "normal" editor, you don't have that luxury. You can complain at the relevant noticeboards, but you're then at the mercy of whatever admins turn up. Over time, it builds up into resentment that ultimately bleeds over to serious anger. In particular, any Arbcom / Oversight boomerang is difficult to take because by definition you don't know why you've been banned.
The whole incident yesterday got completely blown out of all proportion by a right-wing troll turning up and stirring the pot a bit. I've been recently reading about Diana and Unity Mitford and how someone superficially "nice" can turn into a thoroughly unpleasant fascist who hung out with Hitler, and this incident has struck a chord with me over that. I posted a couple of examples of "polite incivility" on the ANI thread yesterday, but it was closed soon after. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Following up on a suggestion I made above: as far as I'm aware what I thought was happening in the background has happened by now. I'm not an oversighter or an arb but that's my impression. I'd say, then, that there's no need to wait if you want to file a case, unless you want to wait for more of the dust to settle or just give it some more time for everyone to reflect. I'm going to email my private findings to the committee to be considered when a case is filed, and I'm assuming you'll name me as a party if I've correctly guessed how you're going to frame your request so I'll comment when I see it. Take care. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Both of you, thanks very much. I do want to wait a few days for dust-settling before going to ArbCom, as well as for me to get my own thoughts clear. Also, I want to fully deal with "exhausting all other forms of dispute resolution" before taking that step, so I intend to open a sort of block review at WP:AN to get comments (in addition to those that were already made at MPants' user talk at the time) first. Unless the response there effectively shuts down any chance of an ArbCom case (which I consider improbable, but I would want to discover before filing a case request), I'll go with the case request right after that closes.
- My initial thought was to have a minimalist number of named parties, but now that you've indicated your desire, Ivanvector, to be a party I'll certainly include you. I'd welcome comments here from anyone about how many or how few named parties there should be, and who.
- About the broader issues, it does seem to me that if I were an admin and made the same edit at his talk page that I made yesterday, no one would have reverted me. That's just the way things are, no matter any denials. My take on the actual events is this: There was indeed a right-wing troll who started a ridiculous discussion at a BLP talk page. MPants' comments at that talk page were well within policy, but led to some baiting (yes, baiting) of him at his own talk page. He removed the comments from his own talk page, which he was entirely within his rights to do. But he did so with an over-the-top edit summary. In the moment, I thought it was rather funny, but the troll started one of those ANI threads that never lead to anything good. An admin blocked MPants for 31 hours for the edit summary. I could quibble over the choice of 31 hours, but that is such a trivial thing that it would be wrong to second-guess it. There are arguments for and arguments against making such a block, but the block was entirely within policy and that too, I would not want anyone to second-guess. MPants made a lousy albeit understandable request for unblocking. The request was rightly denied. That should have been that. It should have ended there. But a few hours after the block lifted, another block was made on the basis of the unblock request. It was manifestly punitive, and the issues about the unblock request were already dealt with when it was declined, so the initial administrative decision of 31 hours, along with the decision to deny the unblock request without extending the block, should have been final unless there had been further bad conduct after the block was lifted. So, ArbCom here we come. I never saw the subsequent oversighted stuff, and I don't want to know, but that obviously never should have happened and the current indef oversight block is entirely appropriate, sad though it may be. The escalation resulting from the extended block does not excuse the posting of oversighted material. But it was escalation nonetheless, and I'm of the opinion that if the 31-hour block had run its course without the escalation, MPants would not have posted that stuff and we would now be back to peaceful editing without losing an editor from the project. I think I remember other stuff involving the blocking admin, and I'm going to go back and look for it in the next day or two.1 So there you have it: my cards are on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- 1. Found it: [2], [3]. Remarkably similar, punishing an April 1 joke. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- No comment from me (yet) about any of the blocks that preceded mine, but I'd suggest skipping the AE block review. The blocks (before mine) were already (kind of) reviewed at ANI, so really you'd just be rehashing, and IMO nothing will or can come of it except drama since ultimately it's an oversight situation. Nothing really can happen at this point without Arbcom's involvement. Totally up to you whether to make me a party or not, I'm intending to participate anyway and I take no offense either way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I need to spend a bit of time thinking about it, and also hoping for any other feedback, from anyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- No comment from me (yet) about any of the blocks that preceded mine, but I'd suggest skipping the AE block review. The blocks (before mine) were already (kind of) reviewed at ANI, so really you'd just be rehashing, and IMO nothing will or can come of it except drama since ultimately it's an oversight situation. Nothing really can happen at this point without Arbcom's involvement. Totally up to you whether to make me a party or not, I'm intending to participate anyway and I take no offense either way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- 1. Found it: [2], [3]. Remarkably similar, punishing an April 1 joke. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- On a lighter note, this has had quite an effect on the page views of my talk page: [4]! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, ... [5] Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- OMG! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- If page views were to be used in a marketing campaign for WP, my suggestion to those who want to ride the band wagon is to either file or be filed against at one of the dramah boards. I think maybe ArbCom would garner the most views over a longer period of time. Perhaps it's a sign of people needing something better to do? Atsme✍🏻📧 22:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, alas, the people who need something better to do include me. I feel awful about MPants, so I feel like I owe it to him, and to the good of Wikipedia, to take the measures that I'm planning here. But I'd sure prefer to do something else (getting a page about a beautiful garden to be an FA, something I helped with recently, was so much more enjoyable). But, in another example of something that involved the drama boards, I decided overnight last night to express support for you at AE, and I just did so. I found your words about your New Years resolutions very eloquent, and I wish you the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Awww, Tryp - thank you! You are such a sweetie. ❤️ Rest assured, I meant every word of what I said in my appeal. It's highly unlikely I'll venture back into that topic area because, like you, I get far more pleasure working with editors who actually have the desire to get articles promoted to GA & FA. You may recall that I volunteered to mentor SNAAAAKE!! last year, and helped him get his siteban lifted. There were times I'd worry about him working too hard - he pours his heart and soul into his writing - and the results are amazing (makes me teary-eyed). He is such an incredible talent. (Don't want to jinx anything so I'm not pinging). There was a moment or two back when I first encountered him that I was concerned things were headed south. I decided to change gears and invited him to go ahead and move forward without any interference from me. I watched in the background to see just what he could do, and I have no regrets. He has not disappointed those of us who trusted him to do the right thing, and just keeps getting better! Those are the things I want to keep experiencing during my time on WP. It's down home, feel good, mental stimulation with happy endings, and that's what makes one want to keep on giving. 💃 Atsme✍🏻📧 19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Group hug? And after wiki-knowing me all this time, you think I'm a sweetie? I must be better at deception than I thought! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Awww, Tryp - thank you! You are such a sweetie. ❤️ Rest assured, I meant every word of what I said in my appeal. It's highly unlikely I'll venture back into that topic area because, like you, I get far more pleasure working with editors who actually have the desire to get articles promoted to GA & FA. You may recall that I volunteered to mentor SNAAAAKE!! last year, and helped him get his siteban lifted. There were times I'd worry about him working too hard - he pours his heart and soul into his writing - and the results are amazing (makes me teary-eyed). He is such an incredible talent. (Don't want to jinx anything so I'm not pinging). There was a moment or two back when I first encountered him that I was concerned things were headed south. I decided to change gears and invited him to go ahead and move forward without any interference from me. I watched in the background to see just what he could do, and I have no regrets. He has not disappointed those of us who trusted him to do the right thing, and just keeps getting better! Those are the things I want to keep experiencing during my time on WP. It's down home, feel good, mental stimulation with happy endings, and that's what makes one want to keep on giving. 💃 Atsme✍🏻📧 19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, alas, the people who need something better to do include me. I feel awful about MPants, so I feel like I owe it to him, and to the good of Wikipedia, to take the measures that I'm planning here. But I'd sure prefer to do something else (getting a page about a beautiful garden to be an FA, something I helped with recently, was so much more enjoyable). But, in another example of something that involved the drama boards, I decided overnight last night to express support for you at AE, and I just did so. I found your words about your New Years resolutions very eloquent, and I wish you the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- If page views were to be used in a marketing campaign for WP, my suggestion to those who want to ride the band wagon is to either file or be filed against at one of the dramah boards. I think maybe ArbCom would garner the most views over a longer period of time. Perhaps it's a sign of people needing something better to do? Atsme✍🏻📧 22:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- OMG! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, ... [5] Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've decided to do this in the following way. I am about to open a block review of the block extension at WP:AN. I realize that there will be drama, but that's going to happen in any case. And it doesn't particularly matter how it goes there, because all that it has to show is that there is a dispute that the community cannot solve. And I really do think that ArbCom wants to see that everything else has already been tried.
- When I file the case request at ArbCom, I'm going to treat the case scope very narrowly and very focused. I'll be the filing party, and the only other named party will be the blocking admin. If anyone wants to add more named parties or broaden the scope, they can say that in statements on the request page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- WP:AN#Review of re-block is now open for comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Now closed. I'm weighing what, if anything, to do next. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, I've decided that this is not worth any more of my time. If anyone else wants to open an ArbCom case request, I'll be interested in following it, but it will have to be someone other than me. I will add my opinion that I think WP has a problem with admins circling the wagons, something that I thought was in the past, but clearly isn't. Certainly doesn't do anything to make me any more interested in adminship for myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Post-ANI, re MJP
Thanks for closing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=885122858#Review_of_re-block the ANI thread]. It was clearly going nowhere.
However, I do have one question for you.
AT ANI, you posted here repeatedly to state that you have sincere concerns
about my response to MJP's misconduct. I think we get that by now, and I reckon that it is probably imprinted permanently on the asphalt of them interweb superhighways.
However, some context is missing. You are clearly a wiki-friend of MJP, and as such you are one of the people who might have had his ear at the tine his customary aggression escalate to the point where he went completely off the rails.
So please can you post the diffs of where you expressed to MJP your serious concerns about MJP's conduct, and counselled/pleaded/warned/reproached him as a friend to back off or take a break. I assume that there was some point where you publicly wrote some variant of "cool your jets, pal" or "I want you back, but you need to stop this" or some words to that effect.
I assume that because you wrote above that you have no argument with much of what you say about civility: yes, it is a serious problem. I don't justify what MPants did after your block
. I assume that was a sincere comment, and that you put at least much effort into restraining and calming your friend as you have now done into post-facto second-guessing those who have tools to restrain and took real-time decisions.
OTOH, if my assumption is mistaken, and there was actually no such effort by you to help your friend out of a uncivil and self-destructive episode and help the community of of a conflict, then please correct me. Either way, you will need to clarify this before you go to go to arbcom, so if there is evidence that you made significant efforts to pull your friend back from the brink, you might as well gather that evidence beforehand.
No rush. Take your time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm happy that you came here to discuss that with me further, thanks. And I really very much hope that we can have a better communication between us than what has happened up to now. So, to answer your question about my advice to him, there is this: [6], that I posted during the first block, a self-criticism as well as advice to him not to say that sort of thing. Please do not think of me as an enabler of incivility nor as someone insensitive to female editors, because I am neither, over a long time of editing here. I've had a long history of arguing for more civility and, although there was nothing gendered about what happened with MPants, I've also long advocated for doing more to make Wikipedia more inclusive and less of a boys' club.
- If you look at the talk section just above this one, you will see my thinking leading up to the AN (not ANI) discussion, and you will also see that I have just decided not to pursue anything with ArbCom or anything further at all – beyond just discussions in user talk like this one here.
- Let me tell you a bit more about why I have been so concerned, for your information to take or to leave. I certainly recognize that you do excellent work with categories. But I also clearly remember this and this, from this past April. There, I was unhappy to see that you had blocked an editor over an April 1 joke with no WP:BEFOREBLOCK and the reaction from me and others was quite similar to what happened with MPants. Then, you also lifted the block, and you said "Several editors belive that a block was too harsh, and I couldn't be bothered aguing the toss, so I'll reduce it to time served.": [7] That does not strike me as actually acknowledging the problems with the block, but rather, more like lifting the block just to make the complaints go away. Both then and now, I think that you have been defensive in the face of criticism. I can understand the human nature of that, but still I also think that admins should act on behalf of community norms, not to push those norms beyond where they are at present. It seems to me that both times you had personal opinions, about April 1 and about civility, respectively, that led you to issue blocks that reflected your own sense of right and wrong but that went somewhat beyond community norms. (Personally, I think community norms should be tougher on civility, as much as that might surprise you, but that April 1 stuff is no big deal so long as it does not happen on articles.)
- I regard MPants as a genuinely nice person who has done a lot of good as an editor. It's an inaccurate stereotype when some editors describe him as always angry and incivil. Just before the blocks began, he was reaching out to help a new editor who appeared to be a young child who needed some help. But he is also someone at the high-functioning end of the autism/Asperger's spectrum (something he has discussed openly on my talk page, so I'm not revealing anything private here), and he can misjudge matters of affect. And when I argue for inclusiveness, that applies to persons with disabilities too. Of course, he still has to abide by our policies, so I have no problem, really, with Cullen's initial block. I really do believe that you did not give MPants a sufficient opportunity to get back on the right track after that initial block. There just was no real benefit to re-blocking him. I can't mind-read whether his subsequent posting of something that got oversighted was the result of the escalation resulting from the re-block, and he had absolutely no valid excuse for doing that in any case, but it would have been much better to deescalate things after the first block. And I'm not convinced that you really accept, even in the face of your very real concerns about civility, that you didn't really need to re-block him. And re-blocking an editor for failing to apologize when they haven't necessarily had enough time to calm down and make an apology raises all kinds of concerns about how many times someone can get blocked, and then get blocked again for the same thing, and on and on.
- That's where I'm coming from. You can take it under advisement and learn from it for the future, or you can disregard it. If you would like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to. --Tryptofish (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I missed the main discussion, but I want to pick up on a point BrownHairedGirl made about civility, and how excessive bad language has put women off from contributing. I have observed a couple of cases where women have contributed and had a negative experience, and just want to briefly outline these.
- The manager of Curious Brewery tried to write an article on the brewery as Rc curiousbrewery. WP:OUTING prevents me from speculating further but I would say there's a 50-50 probability of this editor being female, based on what I know in real life. The article was prodded, sent to AfD and deleted with rather weak arguments (though I can't fault 78.26's close as he was simply following consensus and shouldn't be lumped in with the others) and the account was finally blocked as a sockpuppet through circumstances I think are extraneous. I re-created the article, predominantly using sources that were present nine months ago when the first version was deleted, and it's queued for DYK now
- Georgina Downs took exception to claims on her article that were factually incorrect, most obviously her date of birth. I confirmed via Facebook that it really was her trying to edit her article, simply to correct mistakes, and she had no interest in learning WP policy and wouldn't have been in the mood to do so. The sad thing about this one is, from what I know about her, is she has the time and the aptitude to be a superb contributor to Women in Red and a potential FA writer - if only she wasn't put off by a negative experience
- A user posted a thread on the help desk. She was trying to improve Renee Powell and having difficulty, having her changes reverted, and didn't know what to do - and hence was on the verge of giving up. I contacted her via email, and explained I could help improve the article; Megalibrarygirl went one better and got photographs of Powell to use in the article. I got an email wishing us both sincere thanks for our help, and that the editor couldn't have done it herself.
- Now, the plural of anecdote is not data, and just three examples cannot illustrate a trend. However, the major stumbling blocks with women contributing are a) a confusing user interface, b) an over-reliance on template messages (that don't necessarily have the desired effect) over personal communication and c) an abundance of editors who treat policy as sacrosanct without thinking about improvising to the current situation. The conclusions I reach are Editors are put off by experienced editors simply following policy and doing what they think is the right thing and Two editors telling each other to fuck off on ANI does not cause new editors to leave.
- Sorry for rambling on your talkpage Tryp, but hopefully this has been insightful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, no one here actually knows what gender I am. And, although there is no reason for anyone to know this, because I never said it before, I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- And that poor Olivia. She's my favourite. But apparently she can't edit Wikipedia because she's 8 years too old! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Why do we only care about new editors leaving? Natureium (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly aware of longtime female editors quitting. I know about Elisa Rolle, but she was kicked off rather than quit per se. If you've got any examples, I'd be interested to have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I missed the main discussion, but I want to pick up on a point BrownHairedGirl made about civility, and how excessive bad language has put women off from contributing. I have observed a couple of cases where women have contributed and had a negative experience, and just want to briefly outline these.
- I think it's good to have a basic understanding of perspectives and motivation; however, I'm somewhat concerned over the natural tendency for editors to group things when it should be kept independent. I think Ritchie333 stated it well as it pertains to PAGs and IAR. Over the years, I've seen/experienced a half-century of males struggling to understand the opposite sex. A word of caution - if you haven't figured it out by age 50, you never will. When I look at a problem that needs resolution, I see individuals, none of it gender-related because there are too many variables. I agree with Tryp regarding personality disorders and that it is well worth the time and effort to help productive editors manage them, but only to a degree. We are editors, not psychologists. I also believe editors will be far more successful finding resolutions to specific problems if they approach it in that manner. I understand BHG's position very well. I have also had delightful, intelligent discussions with whistle britches. Our #1 priority is supposed to be what we genuinely believe is the best solution for our readers and the project. Almost everything we say and do is available for the public to see, and I'm of the mind that we should be far more cautious about how we present ourselves, and how we air our dirty laundry. Atsme✍🏻📧 15:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I try and understand the opposite sex, sometimes I get it, sometimes I haven't a clue and I'm still learning. For example, if it's 10pm and I've got half a mile walk through a park in the dark from the station home, I think "well I'll be alright because I'm not a target". Or "Women speak with their mouths, not their breasts. Try looking in the right place". Some of the biggest fist-fights I've had on ANI is where I've been one side saying "do whatever is right to keep people on board and contributing" while the other side has been "policy, policy, policy, policy, policy, policy, policy". The recent "Johnbod vs The Rambling Man" drama-fest is a great example. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Their mouths? Really? I think you'll find it's all a matter of incidence geometry. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Just a quick follow up, I have heard from Mr Pants. He admits that he went off the rails completely and has apologised for that, but does not particularly want to return to editing until major issues with neutrality and impartiality are sorted out. I gave some examples of that on the original ANI thread, but they've been buried in the noise, but to summarise, Wikipedia is not a place to advocate Holocaust denial or to express views that most people would find unpalatable, irrespective of whether or not they were dressed in nice language. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear that. I'll be very happy to see him back. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement
I have decided to very significantly decrease my participation in Wikipedia, for an undetermined amount of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I can't email you Tryptofish, so I can't say this off-wiki, but if you need a good listener to get you through tough times, drop Megalibrarygirl an email. She's more than just a kick-ass Wikipedian, she's a kick-ass human being full stop. (I think enough people have picked up on that through various other things I've said elsewhere). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I meant to write this to you at the end of last year, but somehow put it off: a number of times over the past year, we've worked together on improving the wording of various guidelines and so forth, and I've appreciated your collaborative nature. Too often other editors adopt confrontational poses over copy editing, and so your positive attitude is refreshing. Thank you for your contributions and hope to see you back again. isaacl (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I will miss you, fish face. Even though I continue to always imagine you as Professor Denzil Dexter. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's very sad. Hope you decide to return soon.--Iztwoz (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- 😳...😞...😢...I'm a good listener and my email is enabled...but I'm pretty sure I already know why you've elected to throttle down. Atsme✍🏻📧 20:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, all of you! As you can see, I'm not completely gone. I'll just be around a lot less, until I feel otherwise. About the offers to listen, please don't worry about my mental health; it's not an issue, and I have excellent health care should I need it. I said the thing about my early childhood because I wanted to make the point that editors should not see me as someone lacking empathy, since I was recently caricatured that way elsewhere onsite. I'll observe that it is quite pleasant to spend less time here and more time on other things. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- No!!!! :-) North8000 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I will let the page sleep untill you 'get back' just to give you something to look forward to. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).
No nazis
Posting here as I don’t particularly want to get into a discussion about it on MPant’s page, but since being moved to projectspace, the endorsement section has been removed and we cleaned out a lot of the profanity (and I also added WP:CRYRACIST based on 3 blocks I had to make within 72 hours...) Any help further cleaning it up would be appreciated, I’m sure. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- For watchers, Tony is referring to this: [8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Finally, some common sense
After beginning to feel like Wikipedia has been gaslighting me, I want to thank Bishonen for demonstrating that someone besides me gets it. From User:Bishonen/Optimist's guide to Wikipedia and the Signpost:
- The best way to make established users more civil is to block them for a while. (Ask an admin to do it if you're not one yourself.) In the rare cases where that doesn't help, you can try putting a civility template on their page, or telling them about the policy WP:CIV, which they may not be aware of.
- When people insist that before blocked users can be unblocked, they must apologise, admit their mistakes, agree to learn to avoid previous pitfalls, work to address all of the issues, pave the road, seek redemption, face the music, show that they understand why exactly they were blocked and how right it was that they should be, or show remorse, it's probably not because the insister would like to see a show trial or ritual humiliation. More likely they have some psychiatric training and know how important it is to resolve conflicts and seek reconciliation, and how much better the delinquent would feel afterwards.
👏👏👏
--Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Sissinghurst Castle Garden scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Sissinghurst Castle Garden article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 18, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 18, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's pretty quick! I'll catch up nearer the time to see how you want to handle changes on the day. They can get quite heavily vandalised, or they can have a quiet day in the sun. If the former, there's a bunch of editors who do the reverts. Sometimes, although not that often, a useful suggestion or two can result. Hope you're keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Am so sorry, I didn't see the discussion above re. your curtailing your time on here. It can be a very frustrating place, but also very productive and great fun. I hugely enjoyed our collaboration and am proud of what we produced. I shall keep an eye on it when it has its moment in the sun. Take very good care. KJP1 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Question
Just curious...do you have a specific time frame for your WikiBreak? EEng is running out of sin-a-man puns and misspelling words making typos I saw that too but thought it might have been done accidentally on purpose. Martin is either sleeping or too involved in Welsh road sign translations (same difference), and I'm beginning to crumble under the weight of our entire humor cabal resting on my dainty little shoulders which has forced me to stoop to churning up riddles about garbage disposals. Is there a doctor in the house, or is everybody taking a WikiBreak? I'm thinking there are better ways to get broken. Atsme Talk 📧 02:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, I've got a balky d key. I believe Tfish has some pressing IRL matter that needs attention for a while. EEng 03:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Atsme, I'll let you know, on my own schedule. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- ... I had a dodgy n-key for over two years, u til I fi ally rele ted and i vested i a bra d ew o e. I put it down to bits of toast, as my keyboard was immune from both ghosts and jam (... or "jelly" as you Colonials would have it, no doubt): [9] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- So, Atsme is dainty, EEng is balky, and Martin is dodgy. And I'm a fish. I guess I should say that I've never exactly been on a break. It's more like I'm saying that I'm not going to give my time here as much as I previously did, unless I feel like it. (And judging by my recent activity, it's hard to see if there's really any change.) But please understand that friendly and humorous postings are always welcome here! Given the crap reflected in the talk section immediately below, I could use some laughs! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Earlier today, I got an email from an aquarium supplies company, with the subject line "Reserve Your Reefer Deluxe Today!". I should tell them that I grow my own. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
GMO notification
I thought it might be wise to remind you that GMO are under some sort of special disciplinary regime devised in order to make things go smoothly. I don't know why you are editing against what appears to me to be a 5-2 consensus. Your latest reversion also reverted a grammatical correction to the text. Would you be so kind as to fix the edit that got caught in your rollback (which again appears to go very much against the grain of the TP consensus). Thanks. SashiRolls t · c 16:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was the filing party at the GMO ArbCom case, so yes, I'm aware of what you call "some sort of special disciplinary regime". Duh. I understand how consensus works. About the grammatical thing, I understand your correction to have been this: [10]. That is how I left the page. I did not use the rollback function, but rather used a very clear edit summary: [11]. WP:AE is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
AE decision
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
An WP:IBAN with User:SashiRolls, which means either of you are subject to an WP:ABAN on articles the other party has edited first.
You have been sanctioned The dispute is at an impasse and the AE complaint is at an excessive length. Something had to be done. this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
El_C 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, we've had our conversations before about getting swept up in sanctions while trying to get disruptive behavior taken care of, so I don't think much more needs to be said than you know that I know that you know how it these things can go. I'm not sure what you're planning to do at this point, but you should have no problem showing that the sanction isn't needed for you whether it's asking for clarification on El C's talk page or a formal appeal elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was totally unaware of this, and frankly cannot believe it rational. My best to you. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks both of you for your concern, I appreciate it. But the fact is, I'm happy with this outcome!
- I know all the official-looking AE stuff makes this look like something that's a big deal for me, but it actually isn't. According to the IBAN policy,
A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption.
This isn't a finding of fact that I did anything wrong, and of course I didn't. (Yes, I know that some users will try to weaponize it by misrepresenting what happened, but I'll make them regret it if they do.) It's a fast and effective solution. I don't care whether it's 1-way or 2-way, and the difference will have no effect on anything that I care about. Let's note: [12], [13], and [14]. And as I incessantly say, it's only a website.
- I know all the official-looking AE stuff makes this look like something that's a big deal for me, but it actually isn't. According to the IBAN policy,
- The fact is, my primary concern that I stated at the AE complaint was about the other editor WP:HOUNDing me. And now, problem solved. And I sure have no interest in ever interacting with him again. I said when I tried to decrease my time at WP for a while that I wanted to cut down on drama. The single thing that has been stymieing that for me has been the drama at GMO pages that was precipitated by that user. Now, that's not my problem any more.
- It's important to note what the ABAN part of this means. It's "articles the other party has edited first", not "articles the other party has ever edited". I make note of: [15], [16], [17], and [18]. Let's face it: I've never followed the other editor to articles that they edited and I didn't, and I have ZERO interest in ever doing so. But, even though it isn't worded that way, the decision has the practical effect of topic-banning the other editor from GMO pages and their talk pages, where I've been editing since years ago, and I can continue to do so. Those pages are going to be a lot more peaceful now (unless anyone else gets the bad idea of reigniting the drama).
- I will ask something (easy) of you two and anyone else who is interested. I'm taking Jill Stein off my watchlist (never liked editing it, more like an unpleasant chore). But I'd appreciate other editors watching the GMO section of that page and making sure that any mischief that violates WP:GMORFC gets dealt with. And other than that one article, this whole thing has ZERO effect on my mainspace editing. Also (unless they confront me directly) I won't know if the other editor does anything to break the sanction (mostly, I'd be worried about "coded" discussion about me at other user talk pages, that coyly does not mention me by name) and report it to WP:AE (not ANI). And I sure won't miss commenting about that person at noticeboards.
- This makes my wiki-life easier. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I made my comment at WT:RFA after I read the closure of the AE discussion; so as far as I am concerned, it makes no difference. An IBAN is pretty mild as sanctions go; I'd say it's the mildest of our sanctions. There's multiple current admins with extant sanctions against them that are more severe. FWIW, if I had had the time to propose an outcome at AE, I would have recommended a one-way IBAN, so your editing would have been largely unaffected. I think the community will recognize that you work in a difficult topic area, and that some conflict is inevitable. I stand by my statement that your contributions to the flareup that resulted in this sanction were pretty much the only ones approaching the situation from a policy-based perspective; almost all other contributions to those discussions showed evidence of stonewalling and/or advocacy of a specific POV. That said, I won't push you to do something you don't want; but it was you who suggested that more editors with experience in conflict-ridden areas needed to run at RFA. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- This makes my wiki-life easier. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is nobody had time for it, including myself — not for all of that. But something had to be done, based as mentioned before, on evidence that lacked cohesiveness and concision. I. of course, am pleased Tryptofish is happy with the IBAN, and if anyone wants to use that against them, send em my way. This may not be the prefect remedy, but it was undertaken in the interests of expediency and with pragmatic considerations in mind. El_C 19:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)