Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. (archivessearch)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335
336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345
Incidents (archives, search)
1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096
1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447
448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299
300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309
Other links

User:TylerDurden8823, mass changes, introducing factual errors[edit]

User:TylerDurden8823 mass changes the term "alcohol abuse" to "alcohol use disorder", even though they are different things. Wikipedia has two seperate articles for it. The article Alcohol use disorder says, "This article is about chronic alcohol abuse that results in significant health problems. For alcohol abuse in general, see Alcohol abuse." So basically, the user assumes everone who (ab)uses alcohol has a disorder which is factually wrong. Even if it was correct in certain cases, it would be an unsourced change. A previous talk page discussion was blanked (Special:Diff/1101915733#"Alcohol_abuse"_to_"alcohol_use_disorder") and an ongoing one ignored (Talk:Stevie_Ray_Vaughan#"Alcohol_abuse"_vs._alcohol_use_disorder). Even if you interpret both terms as synonyms (which wikipedia doesn't do, as again, we have two seperate articles), it would still be an unnecessary change as "alcohol abuse" is a perfectly fine term to use, and it would be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- FMSky (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not because "I don't like it". The discussion was over and my talk page had become very lengthy (people had asked me to archive my page for some time and it was becoming burdensome). There is no reason to regularly use the term alcohol abuse since it is stigmatizing when a perfectly reasonable less stigmatizing alternative exists. I'm not sure how you decided that Wikipedia doesn't interpret both as synonyms, the dictionary does, but regardless of whether you see it as an "unnecessary change," is merely your own opinion, but there's nothing wrong with it. Even if Wikipedia has two separate articles for it, that doesn't make it factually true. As below, you have acknowledged that it is a synonym and contradicted yourself. You were unable to provide a compelling case for why the term "alcohol abuse" is necessary over alcohol use disorder before too and remain unable to do so. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I regularly abuse alcohol, but do not have a disorder? Good point. I agree, these are not the same. We aren't all teetotalers.PrisonerB (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said that I am a teetotaler nor that everyone should be. I am sorry to hear that you regularly abuse alcohol though I'm not sure how that's relevant. Your opinion here about whether these terms are synonymous is irrelevant. High-quality sources say they are (see below). Wikipedia reflect what high-quality sources say. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that these are NOT synonyms, and @TylerDurden8823: should NOT be making such changes. Use disorder is not the same thing as abuse, and we should strive to reflect what the sources themselves say. If the source says something is "________ abuse" we should use that phrasing, and if the source says something is "________ use disorder" we should use that phrasing. They are different things, and should not be used interchangeably. --Jayron32 12:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? See the following quote from alcoholism: "Because there is disagreement on the definition of the word alcoholism, it is not a recognized diagnostic entity. Predominant diagnostic classifications are alcohol use disorder[2] (DSM-5)[4] or alcohol dependence (ICD-11); these are defined in their respective sources.[15]" The NIAAA also says you're wrong here with a direct quote: [1] "It encompasses the conditions that some people refer to as alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, alcohol addiction, and the colloquial term, alcoholism." Merriam Webster agrees too, FYI [2] "NOTE: Alcohol use disorder ranges from mild to severe and is typically considered to encompass conditions also referred to as alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, alcohol addiction, and alcoholism." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I warned him about this previously (probably 2 years ago) and was basically given the impression I needed to piss off, I just hadn't gotten around to following up. But this is a very long time problem. It would take a lot of time to go through and fix everything he has done. But they aren't the same, and he has been extraordinarily disruptive with it, to the point it will take someone going through his edits to fix it. I can't see just letting this slide. Dennis Brown - 19:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, because your warning and conduct were inappropriate and you didn't interact well and come across as disrespectful. I have not been disruptive about it and you seem to misunderstand the differences here. Please see the quotations from very strong sources below. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
just looked it up, yikes: --this is a bigger problem than i'd originally thought --FMSky (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and your objections are all inappropriate. They are appropriate substitutions. It is the name for the disorder. As I have discussed in several places, it is backed up by numerous sources. I think you may need a hobby rather than wikistalking me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes great thats a name for the disorder. What does this have to do with people having abused alcohol on occasion? --FMSky (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are clearly defined criteria for what constitutes alcohol use disorder. A person can qualify even if it's periodic. So, you're admitting then that it's a name for the disorder and thus a synonym. Great, that's progress. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A name (not even the name, that would be "alcoholism") for the disorder yes, synonym to alcohol/substance abuse obviously not. --FMSky (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you really going to try and debate what constitutes a synonym with a nonsensical semantics argument? Please see the dictionary's definition of a synonym here [3]. I do not see why you are clinging so desperately to unnecessary stigmatizing language when you have acknowledged on more than one occasion that alcohol use disorder is a synonym, even in this thread. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not a synonym. the end --FMSky (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are contradicting yourself and flying in the face of the dictionary and other strong sources, FYI. This now just seems like stubborn refusal because you don't like it. Seems hypocritical to me to cast aspersions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when this is the display I'm seeing. How about you address the actual sources I have provided? You have now acknowledged that they are synonyms twice [4] [5] and then backpedaled [6] and contradicted yourself [7] both times.(talk) 21:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't forget to focus on content. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't, but it doesn't prevent me from pointing out contradictions and a pattern of behavior directly aimed at me since they decided to open this can of worms back up and aren't leaving me alone.(talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Didn't someone called 'TylerBurden' just get ARBCOM banned? Is TylerDurden a second cousin or something? 🤔  Tewdar  21:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no clue. Unrelated. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies then, just a coincidence.  Tewdar  21:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to make it clear that there's no connection there, Tyler Durden is a character from the novel (and movie) Fight Club. Tyler Burden is just a play on the name Durden, but both are (presumably) named after that character, one just decided to make a play on words with it. There are at least 6 editors that contain TylerDurden or Tyler Durden at the beginning of the name (which is honestly way fewer than I expected), but it's a popular character in certain circles so it's very much just a coincidence that two different editors happen to have a similar name around that theme. - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In light of Tyler's comment about being a physician who has treated many people with this disorder, as well as his objection to the 'stigmatizing' nature of the term 'alcohol abuse', I suspect we might be in WP:RGW territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nonsense and I don't appreciate the focus on character. Please focus on the content. As I have said, I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the stigmatizing term nor seen it disproved that alcohol use disorder is a synonym. The facts remain what they are. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let me ask you this way: is it possible for a person without an alcohol use disorder to abuse alcohol? Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I refer you back to the definitions provided. But yes, if it has been under a year since alcohol use disorder refers to a slightly more longstanding pattern of this kind of alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, based on how we use this term on Wikipedia and widely in other sources, they are largely considered synonymous (see the many sources I have provided). If someone abused alcohol and then stopped for a few months and never did it again, I suppose that would be the exception to the rule. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that one is a disorder and the other an activity; I understand your argument here, but there is a sense in which they are synonymous (understanding "abuse" as a habit or ongoing activity) and one in which they are not (understanding "abuse" as an independent incident). By my lights, it is worth preserving that distinction for encyclopedic purposes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the disorder encompasses that. I still have yet to see you address the sources provided. Please do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, if I were to say "we have to stop alcohol abuse at fraternity parties," you would understand that I was making a mental health plea? Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your point? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that the phrase "alcohol abuse" can indeed be used as a substitute for "alcohol use disorder," but it can also be used to refer to discrete activities. In my "fraternity" example above, I would understand the phrase to refer to overconsumption at said parties without reference to the mental state of those involved. Dumuzid (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read the comments above carefully. I didn't say that they can't though others have and that's the point. Even though I would understand what you're saying in the sentence above, it would be more correct to say binge drinking or high-risk alcohol use. Again, this really seems like splitting hairs. Out of the articles I edited, I have a feeling that examples that your specific example would apply to here, if any, would likely be in a very small minority at best. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taking a quick gander, the only recent example I find is Stevie Ray Vaughn's father, and while I certainly understand your point, for me, anyway, I would slightly prefer the "abuse" language. It strikes me as something closer to an objective, observable fact. "Alcohol use disorder" strikes me as more like a diagnosis from afar, even if it is one that makes a great deal of sense. In everyday life and common parlance, I think you are right, but on Wikipedia where I believe in epistemic humility, it strikes me as just a bit too far. It's like some (admittedly obvious) WP:OR. I'll be the first to say that medicine is not my forte, but I think this is an instance where we need to hew closely to the sources. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is a common misunderstanding I see, even sometimes among experienced editors, where someone thinks that some sources equating two things in the general case mean that we can do so in each specific case. This may be true for terms that are strictly synonymous. Like if RS agree that a wrench and a spanner are the same thing, and one source says "The Queen always carries a spanner", it might be acceptable to state that the Queen always carries a wrench. But for academic terms like these, not defined the same way by everyone, with meanings that have evolved over time, that doesn't work. If you're going to say someone has alcohol use disorder, you need a citation saying that they, specifically, do. Anything less is WP:SYNTH. If Tyler can't see that, then I'm inclined to support a TBAN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I disagree that you have to have the source use that exact terminology when that is the name for the disorder. Please address the specific sources specifically saying that these are direct synonyms and the massive contradiction that we use the term "use disorder" for every other substance other than alcohol (despite many sources in the laypress continuing to use archaic stigmatizing terms-it's a mixed world out there and addiction medicine remains very misunderstood). We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. Your internal logic here has some major holes in it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We have used plenty of sources that probably say "opioid abuse" or abused opioids yet say they have an opioid use disorder. That's not acceptable either. Neither is saying that someone has major depressive disorder based on sources saying they're depressed, antisocial personality disorder based on sources saying they're a sociopath, etc. If you don't understand that, I worry that a TBAN from alcohol might not go far enough. And it's not my "internal logic". It's the logic of this community in creating SYNTH. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I 100% disagree with your premise and it falls afoul of the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy. I'll tell you what though-I think I've had enough of the malignant policies and people on Wikipedia. I think I'll just stop editing altogether. You may do what you wish. You'll continue to lose veteran editors if you keep this up. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tamzin, to be honest I would go a step further to say that Wikipedia's psychology articles have an especially hard time distinguishing psychopathy/sociopathy from antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. I agree it's not acceptable, and this is only made harder by the overlap between criminal psychology and clinical psychology and their real-world disagreements that are in my experience difficult to represent with due weight in-article. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not commenting on this discussion but clerically noting that I have fixed the links in the original message (they were broken raw links as the last parenthesis was being treated as part of the link) and made them wikilinks to the intended destinations. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I will point out that academically speaking the words are not synonymous. According to [8], Alcohol misuse is a broad term that incorporates a spectrum of severity, ranging from hazardous use that exceeds guideline limits to misuse severe enough to meet criteria for an alcohol use disorder (AUD) ie. they are not synonymous, and do not even overlap as far as defitions go since alcohol abuse/misuse refers to subclinical AUD. In the interest of a less biased term, I would suggest "alcohol misuse" and "alcohol abuse" are synonyms, and I think the first is less stigmatising (this is just my opinion though - I don't know what other people think). AFIAK, the term "alcohol abuse" has fallen out in academia in preference for "alcohol misuse", and I believe it is probably to try and dodge the stigma, although I haven't seen any evidence it's actually achieved this. Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have not done an exhaustive check, just a dozen or so recent edits from TylerDurden8823's recent contributions. I do not see a mass of inappropriate changes. Most of the changes I looked at appeared reasonable, if not necessarily necessary, and were associated with a large number of minor copy edit improvements during the same edits. This does not tick the boxes of "mass edits" for me, considering that there were other edits interspersed. Also, most of the reversions also removed all the improvements as collateral damage. I would say the reversions I looked at did more harm than good. I do not know how many of the other people commenting here have inspected the actual changes under dispute, or how many they have checked, or how many of the cases of changing alcohol abuse or alcoholism to alcohol use disorder were actually inappropriate, taking into consideration that I also think that there is a difference between alcohol abuse as an activity and alcohol use disorder as a medical condition and alcoholism as a poorly defined non-medical term. To those of you who have not personally checked, I suggest that you do so. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic ban proposals [edit]

I'm proposing a topic ban from all topics regarding alcohol, broadly construed. Dennis Brown - 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support As proposer. This is a long time problem that won't get fixed any other way. Dennis Brown - 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's way overkill and not appropriate. The edits I have made are completely appropriate and have not introduced factual errors. I wholly disagree with your assessment and sense a clear ax to grind. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That you can't understand the problem is why a topic ban is necessary. Dennis Brown - 01:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support for obvious reason. Or just never making that edit again, but that would be hard to monitor --FMSky (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For anyone reviewing this, I again refer you to the aforementioned sources showing that Dennis, Prisoner, and FMSky are wrong. Here are just a few more showing that they are, in fact, synonyms by definition: [9], [10], [11] (suggesting these terms can be used interchangeably from a very strong source, NIDA), [12], [13] (analogous to how we use opioid use disorder, not "opioid abuse"-we literally do this for basically every other substance use disorder and appropriately so).
While I haven't thoroughly analyzed all of those sources, I wouldn't put too much stock in the definition. While it says that the disorder is 'characterized by alcohol abuse or or dependence', I do not interpret that to mean that all forms of alcohol abuse are necessarily connected to the disorder. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's up to you but that's the weakest of the sources provided. Merriam Webster is a much stronger source and says the same as do sources like the NIAAA. Your argument sounds like a pedantic one that misses the intention behind the definition you're quoting. Cleveland Clinic disagrees with you [14] as does UPenn [15]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm making an honest effort to help sort out this dispute, and it's requiring a little bit of extra effort to fully understand what these terms mean and whether they can be used interchangeably. You may deal with these issues on a regular basis, but the rest of us don't. If you could actually answer Dumuzid's question, that would help all of us to better understand your point of view. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on how you originally entered the discussion, I did not get that impression since it felt like you immediately started commenting on character. If that's the impression you want others to have, then perhaps consider a different approach next time. I did answer Dumuzid's question. If you could read the sources I have provided (most of them are not that long) before commenting further and seeing that there are numerous examples that are directly saying that they're synonymous, that would be great. That would be more helpful to truly trying to sort out the issue. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I will peruse the sources when I return to Wikipedia later this evening. Or perhaps not. Talking down to me is not the best way to get me to do extra reading, and I think you'll find most other people here are similarly unimpressed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talking down to you? I think you need to re-read your initial comment and really decide who spoke down to whom here. I just don't buy this feigned I just wanted to help innocent comment after opening with a comment on me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban from psychiatric disorders. The discussion above does not leave me with faith that Tyler is able to edit in line with out policies and guidelines in this topic area. I actually don't know if a topic ban from alcohol in particular is necessary, if this topic ban is enacted; color me neutral. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TBAN on alcohol, broadly construed - Conflating alcohol abuse with alcohol use disorder is problematic WP:SYNTH. It's worsened by the fact that such conflation could lead to something like a BLP being described as having a mental disorder (alcohol use disorder) when the really don't have it. It also appears as though Tyler is not willing to acknowledge he is wrong or even agree to stop doing this, which is WP:IDHT. Iamreallygoodatcheckers[email protected] 23:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban on alcohol, broadly construed We do not need tenacious axe grinders misbehaving for years in a certain topic area. If the disruption spreads elsewhere, I will support a sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TBAN on alcohol and drug use issues, broadly construed. I would expand the TBAN beyond the OP. Tyler hasn't limited this to alcohol, this is representative, not exhaustive, and if we narrow this TBAN to alcohol, it will continue for other issues as well. As a side note, they have taken their ball and gone home, though I think the TBAN discussion should continue since they could return at any time. --Jayron32 01:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban on alcohol, broadly construed - I have no opinion about a topic ban on the broader drug issue or psychiatric disorders (though the above comments from Durden are not reassuring that there won't be an AN/I discussion later about these things in a broader sense) but what is well demonstrated is that there is an ongoing issue with alcohol that needs to be addressed, and a topic ban is the most narrow solution which will solve that without having to resort to flat out blocks or bans. - Aoidh (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban from psychiatric disorders even if it will be moot as long as Tyler stays retired, which is certainly his prerogative. It's a shame to see a veteran editor leave on such terms, but nobody forced him to insist that everyone else was wrong. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well ... I'm not supporting because there's plenty of pile on without me, but if I had a dollar for everyone at ANI who slaps "RETIRED" on his or her user page in the wake of a filing not going their way (most of whom slink back after a few days or weeks), I could go to the corner pub and get thoroughly hammered. Ravenswing 14:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Striking my support upon further consideration. The underlying issues are clear as mud to me, and in retrospect I probably shouldn't have gotten involved in this discussion. I don't want to see an editor get unjustifiably sanctioned (retired or otherwise). I think this thread might have taken a very different direction if Tyler hadn't been so doggedly combative, but that's not a sufficient reason to topic ban him. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support because of the continuing problems.PrisonerB (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support topic ban from medicals as a whole. There is clear evidence of disruption more than just alcohol. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I feel like this whole discussion is overkill. We're dealing with a situation in which terms have multiple meanings; also, we're frequently dealing with lower-quality sources (e.g., journalists who toss in whichever term they're familiar with, or whichever term a family member used, without verifying that this is, in fact, the completely and precisely correct term). And since some editors believe that term X means whatever Miss Snodgrass told them, and some editors believe, as an article of faith, that we should blindly follow the sources right off a cliff even if we know the source is wrong (or at least not so precise that we should rely on it for fine distinctions between closely related, overlapping, and sometimes contested terminology), and yet other editors believe that term Y is highly preferable because some other sources say to normally prefer Y over X, we are... going to topic ban someone who turned several highly viewed medical articles, including one on a serious and common psychiatric condition, into Wikipedia:Good articles?
    This might not be a proportionate response to a reasonable difference of opinion.
    In case folks haven't reviewed the edits in question, let me step you through two:
    The disputed change in MicroRNA is about whether we should say "Alcoholism" to "Alcohol use disorder". The cited source mentions:
    • "alcoholism" four times (not counting two mentions of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; counting one mention of specially bred animals for lab testing)
    • "chronic alcohol abuse" five times
    • "long-term alcohol abuse" once
    • "alcohol abuse" once (again, not counting NIAAA's name)
    If the goal were to stick strictly to the sources, then chronic alcohol abuse is the winner. That's a red link. What's the nearest term? Well, reasonable people could disagree, but alcohol use disorder sounds like a plausible option to me. AIUI everyone who "abuses" "alcohol" "chronically" actually does have AUD.
    This disputed change took a sentence that's probably got a Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing problem, and changed the plain-text words "teen drug and alcohol abuse" to a link to the nearest relevant article, "teen substance use disorder". Is this perfect? Maybe not. Is the cited source (in which the author says things like "I guess what they say is true: Everything is bigger in Texas, including their ignorance on the effects of such laws") perfect? Definitely not. Is there a material gap between "teen drug and alcohol abuse" and "teen substance use disorder"? Reasonable people could disagree, but the statement is going to be factually true (i.e., in the real world) regardless of whether you link to Substance abuse or Substance use disorder, and the reader's IMO best served by having a link to one of those pages, instead of having no links, which is what the reversion created. (Also, Wikipedia is best if we could please avoid copyright problems, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing, and reverting back to the prior too-close-for-comfort version is Not Actually Helping on that score. I'm going to assume here that the reverter didn't bother to look at the source, because the alternative is worse [i.e., that the reverter either doesn't understand our copyvio standards or doesn't mind violating them].)
    I think this dispute might have reached a productive resolution if the editors involved had tried contacting editors who know something about these subjects (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine) before trying to process this as an alleged rule-breaking incident. I wonder whether that might still be possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just re-read this "argument":

    The disputed change in MicroRNA is about whether we should say "Alcoholism" to "Alcohol use disorder". The cited source mentions: "alcoholism" four times (not counting two mentions of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; counting one mention of specially bred animals for lab testing) "chronic alcohol abuse" five times "long-term alcohol abuse" once "alcohol abuse" once (again, not counting NIAAA's name). If the goal were to stick strictly to the sources, then chronic alcohol abuse is the winner. That's a red link. What's the nearest term? Well, reasonable people could disagree, but alcohol use disorder sounds like a plausible option to me.

so basically, "alcohol use disorder" wasn't used once in the article but somehow you conclude that this is the term that should universally be used?.
"AIUI everyone who "abuses" "alcohol" "chronically" actually does have AUD.'" - and that seems like WP:OR to me. --FMSky (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FMSky, you are missing the point. At AN/I we are not here to work out what the correct/ideal wording should be. WAID examined the source to demonstrate that it used many different terms for much the same thing, and noted the original text may have plagiarism issues. WP:OR says:
Despite the need for reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research.
So editors are permitted to use terms and words that do not appear in the source. Whether the original text or modified text "retains the substance" is not trivially obvious here. I'd suggest that an actual doctor with experience in this domain might have more of an instinct about this than just some random person on the internet. That doesn't mean they are right but some people here weirdly seem to think knowing something about the subject you are writing about should be held against him and all the more reason to topic ban them. Clearly some editors have strong opinions, and yours are very likely influenced by the investment you made with 100 reverts and complaining about the other guy at AN/I. We all then know that you and all the other folk with pitchforks and torches are unlikely to back down, in this forum, for obvious reasons. That makes this a crap place to have a discussion about the best wording for pathological alcohol use in our articles. I think WAID has demonstrated that a reasonable person paraphrasing the sources may have chosen the wording Tyler did. You are paying special attention to that edit because it changed the wording, rather than if Tyler wrote the whole paragraph originally. I'd really advise backing down on continuing to argue at AN/I and instead, if you do care about how we should word the terminology surrounding pathological alcohol use, then join the discussion at WT:MED (which won't be concerned with who is right or who should be sanctioned). -- Colin°Talk 09:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also want to call out the drift from what I said ("reasonable people could disagree...sounds plausible to me") to what FMSky said in reply ("you conclude that this is the term that should universally be used"). Hmm, I'm pretty sure that I didn't say anything that goes any further than the one article/one source I discussed, and I didn't even "conclude" which term "should" be used in that one sentence, much less which term "should universally be used".
I point this out because it's very easy to slide from narrow particulars into pounding on the table about the end of the world (anyone who wants to write a warning essay about this could likely fill it with examples from my own posts), and, even though it's a mistake I've made repeatedly, it is also a mistake that I think we should resist. There might be a certain dopamine rush when we jump from "She didn't fully agree with me about this one sentence" to "I gotta defend the whole wiki against these people who don't even believe in <shared value>!!!!1!!!!", but our community works best if we don't misrepresent the opinions of other editors, even if that makes for somewhat more boring, fact-based conversations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too. I'm also interested in precisely what the scale of this mass editing is. The editor could have made three edits or three thousand from the evidence provided. I'm also very interested if there has a detailed discussion of the distinction between the terms... and how much the editor was involved in this discussion. I'm aware that content discussion can take a long time, and I'm not sure this is the correct forum, but it does rather feel like people have come to a conclusion here without much reference discussion of wht is right and wrong. It also strikes me that the terms "use" and "abuse" are very likely to be used within the literature for "political" purposes, so it's unlikely to be an open and shut case. Darcyiscute's source above seems like a good source on this [16], it has a summary of the terms in Table1... which does make things a little open and shut, but I wonder if this is simplification or editorializing on the part of the author. Talpedia (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a good point about to what extent that source editorializes the terms. So I've had a closer look at the 2016 review, which says which says: This table is adapted with permission from [...] and uses terminology from the DSM-IV for alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence, and from the DSM5 for [alcohol use disorder]. The source table was abbreviated and updated to reflect the DSM-5 terminology for this report in collaboration with Dr. Jonas. If this is a faithfully reproduced table, then I have no reason to believe the review editorialized the definitions. The [...] is referring to [17], which is a standards recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, so for at least the US I believe this is a secondary source faithfully reproducing these 2013 standards and representing academic consensus on definitions, which in turn were largely based on the DSM-5 and ICD-10 at the time.
They mention a more detailed report of their methods is described at [18], which says: The operational definition of drinking limit guidelines varied across studies. Studies typically defined limits by a weekly total of standard drinks (eg, <20). (More detail on page 33).
There are a few nontrivial questions which I think would be best established at RfC (I do not think ANI is the right venue for this):
1. What term should articles use for referring to "consuming excessive alcohol"? Can editors use the USPSTF guidelines to determine if alcohol consumption is excessive?
2. (using placeholder "alcohol misuse") Does not following a USPSTF guideline constitute alcohol misuse? Is it original research for us to say x person has alcohol misuse based on this logic if it's not stated in a reliable source?
3. Is it libelous to claim on a BLP article that a person has "alcohol misuse" if this is not directly stated by reliable sources? (I haven't looked at all the editors' changes, but I think this is relevant)
Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In a way quoting the DSM makes me *less* sure about the terminology - since the DSM will be prescriptive rather than descriptive of how researchers talk... but I agree let's chase this up somewhere else if we are going to dig into it.
On 2. I almost feel as if alcohol misuse has a distinct meaning with lower standards of evidence in biographies. If a lot of newspapers talk about alcohol misuse then perhaps we should use the "lay" meaning and not try to be specific. To be clearer we would need to have access to someone's medical records!
On 3. I suspect that if someone is shown to be repeatedly drinking to excess with negative results in reliable sources it would be reasonable to describe them as "misusing alcohol". On the other hand saying that someone has "alcohol use disorder" may well be libelous (depending on context) because it's more specific and it sort of implies that a doctor has agreed to this (and so, presumably, this information is more reliable). Talpedia (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am tempted to add to this conversation, but I think we need to have the conversation elsewhere. I suspect that we need a conversation on stigmatizing language in general plus a separate one for alcohol specifically. Additionally, some of the disputed articles might need individual discussions.
Talpedia, I find 95 instances of FMSKy reverting TylerDurden's edits, so presumably, if we assume that 100% of those involved these terms, that means the "mass edits" is on the order of 100 edits. (They aren't all about alcohol; I don't see those terms in either this or this, both in the same article [the only one I checked], and the word alcohol doesn't appear on the page. But, still, as a rough approximation, it's probably closer to 100 than to 10 or to 1,000.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose topic ban per WhatamIdoing. Tyler has helped get articles to Good Article status. The changes Tyler has been making seem reasonable and the problem seems to surround nuanced disagreements between terminology e.g., alcoholism vs. alcohol use disorder, misuse vs. abuse. Such disagreements exist in the academic literature, professional bodies and treatment/recovery groups/organisations. This is a pure content dispute and this specific content dispute has arisen before on Wikipedia over the years. It is inappropriate to topic ban a user to settle a content dispute when there is no convincing behavioural issues.--Literaturegeek | [email protected]? 15:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is there an official process for suspending or otherwise giving up on this discussion, at least until the content question can be discussed at other/suitable pages? I'm sure that nobody here wants to issue a topic ban when there's any significant chance that subsequent RFCs would prove the disputed edits correct, and it would be preferable to have this editor free to join in the content discussions (if he's willing, which is uncertain). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would that be needed? We currently have over 10 people in favor of a topic ban and only one against. Case seems pretty clear to me --FMSky (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw here again the source that the terms are not synonyms --FMSky (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I count 3 and half (the half being me). I think it's still unclear what the best term is and it may well vary from a case to case basis. But you are correct, a lot of people seem to be in favor of topic ban. There are clear advantages of resolving content disputes through source analysis rather than topic bans in terms of compliance, personal growth, procedural fairness, article quality, and drama reduction and editor retention. There are however time costs and some editors may simply ignore any evidence given. Talpedia (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FMSky, let's look at your source. It's got WP:MEDDATE problems and it's about something else, but you like it, so let's look at it. Specifically, let's look at the relevant footnotes in the source you recommended. The footnote for "AUD§" says "DSM-5 criteria. Not all exact criteria are listed. This new category integrates the 2 DSM-IV disorders “alcohol abuse” and “alcohol dependence” into a single disorder for DSM-5."
That means that – according to your own recommended source – Tyler was absolutely factually correct to say that "alcohol abuse" should (sometimes) be called "alcohol use disorder". Specifically, your own recommended source directly says that "alcohol abuse" is an older concept that has been replaced by "alcohol use disorder". In other words, this whole kerfuffle is based on you being concerned about someone replacing a much older (DSM-IV from 1994) term with a newer, broader category that – again, according to your own recommended source – includes (but is not limited to) the older, narrower diagnosis. Everybody who had a diagnosis of "alcohol abuse" or "alcohol dependence" in 1994 got a (single) new label called "alcohol use disorder" when DSM-V came out in 2013.
I realize that by the time people have spent a week here, it's hard to detach and look at disputes from fresh eyes. It's probably hardest for people who have been involved in the content dispute, instead of those who saw the dispute for the first time here. But I am looking at what @Lepricavark wrote ("nobody forced him to insist that everyone else was wrong") and thinking that it might be a very bad idea to proceed from the POV that not only Tyler but also your own recommended source are wrong about the facts, and that only the non-medical editors above are right.
I think the better choice here is to get this content dispute off of ANI and hand the question over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Once the content dispute has been sorted out, if it turns out that editors conclude that your recommended source is wrong, then it's easy enough to come back here and ask for a ban proposal to be revived. But if it turns out that your recommended source is correct, then I hope you can agree that it would be stupid for the English Wikipedia to ban an editor for the crime of "insisting that everyone else was wrong" if "everyone" (I think I could four editors in that category, none of them with much experience in medical subjects?) turned out to actually be wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. I saw this the other day and my heart sank. Looking again, I am encouraged that at least now there has been some sensible analysis and commentary. I too am concerned that some longstanding editors/admins perpetuate a myth that our articles are required to use the terminology of our sources (which to begin with, supposes our sources are even consistent on this, something WAID's analysis demonstrates they are not). It is a really dangerous myth that gets wheeled out typically to support reverting someone trying to improve word-choices on Wikipedia in a way an editor disagrees with. It is patently false to anyone who has paraphrased a source, or tried to make a difficult topic accessible to and engaging for general audience, or done any significant amount of copy editing and prose polishing.
AN/I is not the place to have a discussion about what terminology is preferable, interchangeable, deprecated, or which words to use in which cases but not others. Nor is it appropriate for editors to make a 100 reverts and then google some sources to try to justify why they were right and an actual subject expert was wrong. As Literaturegeek and Talpedia's comments indicate, it is not clear what terminology our articles should use, and I agree with others that there is need for a discussion on this topic in a venue where the incentive is to find how best to improve our articles, and not (for crying out loud, really) for folk to start suggesting site bans. -- Colin°Talk 19:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it an accepted community or administrative standard to topic ban for a content dispute without even allowing for a content RfC or discussion at the relevant WP Med project? To me this topic ban proposal is premature and ill thought out. For all we know an RfC might side for TylerDurden (or against, or neutral).--Literaturegeek | [email protected]? 21:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly there does not seem to be any community consensus that all/most of the edits made by Tyler were bad, and my impression so far is they were mass reverted solely on a "I don't like it / I didn't understand it" basis. Scrabbling around for sources to justify that mass revert looks, em, bad, especially when an offered source was so thoroughly dismantled by WAID as not saying what it was claimed to say. Even if an RFC or big discussion concluded in a way that justified some/most/all being reverted, I doesn't follow that Tyler should be topic banned (though that might be appropriate if he didn't accept the consensus and persisted afterwards). This looks much like garden variety situation where two editors disagreed on content and got hot headed about it, one of them took the other to AN/I to settle their content dispute through sanctions and mass reverts. The result, currently, is Tyler is retired, an editor who was clearly capable of producing quality medical articles.
I am really concerned that a topic ban was proposed to resolve a dispute that was far far from clear and straightforward, which quickly escalated in scope to "all of medicine" by people claiming "evidence" of wider problems (evidence that appears AFAICS to be entirely lacking wrt diffs, etc), and even a threat of a site ban. If I were an admin, I'd be recommending a few people take AN/I off their watchlists till the summer is over and they cool down. -- Colin°Talk 07:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment It appears the editor has publicly retired. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It means nothing - people do that, and come back, all the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Not because of their choice of terms.... but instead because of their insistence that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. This is not conducive to a collaborative environment. Yes- they "retired" but should they come back- they should do so with the intent to compromise and work with their fellow editors- not steamroll them and force their own opinions. Others have called them a great contributor- but a great editor does not force their opinion or obstinately insist everyone else is wrong and they are right. A great editor debates the merits, looks to see their fellow editor's sides, and tries to find a compromise that works for everyone. Until they can do that- they are prolific, not great. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • oppose per Literaturegeek it is inappropriate to topic ban a user to settle a content dispute when there is no convincing behavioural issues--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support to both proposed substance abuse topic ban because it's been going on way too long and their responses make it seem as though they don't intend to stop. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nightenbelle and @Hey man im josh, I'm curious about your rationales. Are you assuming that Tyler's edits are factually wrong? That the correct terminology for a medical subject is just a matter of opinion anyway, so it doesn't matter if articles use outdated, imprecise, or erroneous language? Something else?
    What I'm wondering in the end is: If you saw someone putting errors into, say, a COVID-19 article, and you know they are wrong, and you fixed them, would you be satisfied if that editor came by and told you that you should "not steamroll them and force your own opinions" and "not force their opinion or obstinately insist everyone else is wrong and they are right" and "your responses make it seem as though you don't intend to stop" correcting errors and that we need to "find a compromise" – maybe a compromise that that lets them keep half the errors in the article? Somehow, I don't think you'd be satisfied with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem is that Tyler is not using proper discretion in applying the terminology to the correct places. He's mass-changing all uses of "substance abuse" and "alcohol abuse" to "substance use disorder" and "alcohol use disorder", without regard for whether the specific sources used in the specific articles do the same. It's not a synonym, it's akin to finding an article saying that a person was characterized with antisocial behavior with someone who has been formally diagnosed with Antisocial personality disorder. The first is a common term used to describe someone's personality, and does not require a medical diagnosis; the second is a documented medical disorder that does require a medical diagnosis. You can't interchange the terms, because they don't mean the same thing. It is Tyler's repeated refusal to acknowledge that different words mean different things, and the distinction here is important, that is the cause of the topic ban request. --Jayron32 16:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    According to the source recommended above, AUD is the DSM-V label that replaced both the DSM-IV label "alcohol abuse" and and the DSM-IV label "alcohol dependency". These are not "exact synonyms", but they are now considered "the same condition". Large-scale changes could therefore be appropriate, just like you might update any other disease whose preferred name has changed – Asperger's to autism (also not "exact synonyms", but still now considered "the same"), MR to intellectual disability, swine flu to H1N1, leprosy to Hansen's disease, etc.
    Of course, we never have any idea how many articles an editor looked at but passed by. Actions not taken are invisible in our system. It is therefore very easy to think that he was "mass-changing all uses" even if that's not true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They may be the same condition, but it's ignoring the gap between people who use substances and a alcohol and do not develop a disorder regarding them, and those that do. Substance use and alcohol use are both possible without disorder. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC) Follow up: I forgot to finish my statement, so I'm just editing it onto the end of my other and signing it seperately instead of using a new line. I also wonder, if the problem is the difference between DSM-IV and DSM-V definitions, the DSM-V was released 9 years ago, I'm curious to see if any of this discussion has occured on these article's talk pages regarding the change in the intervening time. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The disputes that I've looked into involve changing the word "alcoholism" or the DSM-IV diagnostic label of "alcohol abuse" (NB: not "use") to the DSM-V label of "alcohol use disorder". None of the ones I have looked at involve non-abusive/non-disordered alcohol use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This dif appears to be about the article subject's father. I'm not sure that was a "DSM change" argument, since the source lists it as "Alcohol use" not "alcohol use disorder". This seems to be more of a "I don't like this phrase", and the talk page discussion on it seems to jive, considering the editor stated FMSky, please explain to me why you are reverting a simple edit to change alcohol abuse, a needless stigmatizing term, to alcohol use disorder, the actual name of the condition, and when it was pointed out that the source says alcohol abuse, not alcohol abuse disorder, the editor completely ignores that point and asks the other editor to address his points, which the editor already did by pointing out that "Disorder" is unsourced. To me, that talk page comment (especially the phrase "needlessly stigmatizing") makes it seem lot like the editor is righting the great wrongs he sees with that phrase. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As sourced to a 29-year-old book, which (not unsurprisingly) uses 29-year-old terminology.
    We have a medical source listed in this thread that says alcohol abuse is the old name for what is now called alcohol use disorder. Tyler's correct that (as a historical fact) the name was changed by the DSM partly out of concern for stigmatizing people. If our sources are concerned about stigma, why shouldn't we follow their lead? But... maybe we should follow the advice of major professional bodies and modern sources about using current medical terminology even if there's a risk that using current terminology might have an effect on the amount of stigma that some people deal with? Why would we want to preserve outdated terms that have been directly discouraged by some of our best sources?
    Consider this parallel: "bird flu" has been officially discouraged as a name for Influenza A virus subtype H5N1. About a quarter of the sources cited in that article use the older name in their headline, and more mention it in the text of the source. But can you imagine someone edit-warring to keep as many instances of the word "bird flu" in that article, or dragging someone to ANI, just because outdated, mostly non-medical, sources use the word? I can't. But that seems to be what happened here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You literally just proved my point for me. You pointed out, these are mainly non-medical articles with non-medical sources, implying that maybe they aren't using the medical definition when they say someone abused alcohol. So your argument is to change a non-medical source statement, on a non-medical article, with a non-medical source, to reference a medical diagnosis, and the source doesn't even say that.
    That's a big no from me. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @FrederalBacon, FMSky reverted Tyler's edits in articles like Addiction (journal), Healthcare in Texas, Suicide in Russia, Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome, Health in Poland, Alcohol abuse, Disulfiram – stop me as soon as you see something that doesn't sound medical, okay? – Reactive arthritis, Alcohol withdrawal syndrome, Narcology, High-functioning alcoholic, Causes of mental disorders, Kindling (sedative–hypnotic withdrawal), Milk borne diseases, Mental health in Singapore, Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Intention tremor, and more. At a quick glance, only a fraction of the edits involve BLPs.
    If you want to look into a specific example, have a look at this revert for Social skills. The cited source is a 14-year-old review article from a good journal. It uses the word "alcoholism". It never uses the word "abuse".
    • Tyler switched it to the modern DSM terminology that is not used in the source.
    • FMSky switched it to "alcohol abuse" and "alcohol abusers" – which is also not in that single source.
    If it's not okay for Tyler to use modern terminology that isn't in the source, why would it be okay for FMSky to use outdated terminology that isn't used in the source? If you think it is critical to stick to the sources, aren't they equally wrong?
    Let's look at one of the completely non-medical ones: this edit in The Expendables 4. This is clearly not a medical article. Tyler changed a description to say to "heavy alcohol use". FMSky changed it to "alcohol abuse". The cited source says: Not one word about alcohol. The closest we come is the next source, and wenn man ein bisschen Deutsch lesen kann, sagt nur: "Ich spiele wieder Gunner Jensen, den besoffenen Schweden". That's the closest we get to "alcohol abuse" in cited sources for the whole paragraph: The actor says "I'm still playing Gunner Jensen, the drunk Swede".
    If it's not okay for Tyler to take a source that says "the drunk Swede" and write "heavy alcohol use", why would it be okay for FMSky to turn "the drunk Swede" into "alcohol abuse"? Alcohol abuse used to be a diagnosis. Heavy alcohol use never has been. And yet when I look above, isn't everyone complaining that Tyler is supposedly the one who is inappropriately assigning medical diagnoses? Where are the complaints about FMSky doing this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, I have not offered an opinion on the TBAN, just on the idea that mass change was not constructive, for the reasons stated above. I have absolutely no doubt that some of the edits were indeed constructive. FrederalBacon (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing, you make a good point, and I see where you're coming from. Unfortunately the dispute they're currently in is not black and white, this is a matter of terminology that they're refusing to budge from based on WP:SYNTH. As others have mentioned, they're not synonyms. It's not as though they're reverting misinformation being spread, they're forcing their interpretation. Their exchange with Tamzin further up, before the topic ban proposal section, is what pushed me over the edge to voice my support.
    I think the user has made some good contributions, but Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. They're being combative and aggressive while refusing to acknowledge that the complaint against them might have some semblance of validity. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And others are being combative and aggressive while refusing to acknowledge that the complaint against them might have some semblance of validity.
    I'm working on the content-related RFC questions now, and I'm looking at the possibility that the conclusion will be that Tyler will be vindicated on the content question. In a couple of months, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language could have a sentence that says "Use current terminology, even if the cited source uses outdated language. For example, the current term Alcohol Use Disorder should be preferred to both Alcohol abuse and Alcohol dependence, and Autism should be preferred to all of the older terms it replaced, including Asperger syndrome, Classic autism, and Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified."
    If that happens, are you going to be thinking "Huh. I voted to ban a guy for doing exactly that." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This has been proposed for 9 days now, maybe an admin can read consensus, close and implement whatever needs implementing, please. Dennis Brown - 17:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case anyone hadn't noticed, TylerDurden8823 quit Wikipedia 10 days ago. (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • And they could come back tomorrow, so it has no bearing on this discussion. Dennis Brown -

Disruptive editing from user:CABF45[edit]

Reported user is actively disrupting the Ice cream article trying to push Chinese contribution to the history of that food. They refuse to achieve consensus on the talk.

  • Reported user adds content with unreliable sources
  • reported user is reverted for copy vio by another user
  • Reported user begins with an aggressive tone a discussion on the talk page of the user who reverted them and threatened to add back the content [19] while being said that this content is not improving the article [20].
  • Other users said that the content added by the reported user is not relevant for the article [21]
  • Reported user seems unable to find out if a source has expertise for a topic or not and refuses to listen when other users try to inform them about that (several times) [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]
  • Reported user added again some content while claiming that the source for their edit is a food historian, i reverted them with an explanation on why their source isn't reliable and left a message on the talk about that and finally warned the user, their reaction was to ignore WP:BRD and to revert my edit and post two warnings on my talk [27], [28].

All in all, when i look at CABF45's contributions, i don't see any will of improving the article and, more generally, the project.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Since when is the BBC News an "unreliable source"? After clarifying that this was the children site of BBC News I didn't add back the content.
  • I was accused of copyright violation. Please check the link and the edit summary and make up your mind whether it was warranted or not. Also reverting editor calls me a halfwit while trying to discuss. I "threatened to add back the content" after further tweaking it which is what we do when accused with CopyVio.
  • I added ABC-CLIO and Royal Society of Chemistry sources, which weren't good enough, because they were not so-called "food historians".
  • Now I'm adding a historian (published by John Wiley & Sons) who wrote seventeen(!) books on history, cuisine and the French regional culture, but he reverts it again, because Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat is still not food historian enough.
  • Several reliable and relevant references claim a Chinese origin of ice cream, but User:Wikaviani only accepts the Iranian origin of it.
  • Do we really want to be in disagreement with Encyclopædia Britannica as they too seem to favor the Chinese origin of ice cream.
  • However, User:Wikaviani accepts a book published by none other than RW Press only because it supports the "Iranian origin" narrative.
CABF45 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Britannica does not claim a "Chinese origin" of ice cream, it only says that iced desserts were introduced to Europe from the east. Besides, it has been said unreliable as a source by an admin, Doug Weller. Last but not least, as explained to you many times, Wikipedia works with consensus and i don't see any for your edits.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Britannica says:

Iced desserts were introduced into Europe from the East. Marco Polo brought back descriptions of fruit ices from his travels in China.

That's fair enough for me: Would you keep it or would you disruptively remove it?
When did Doug Weller say that Britannica is unreliable? CABF45 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rest my case, i leave it to the admins. Best.~~ ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to answer to your above comments, firstly, "when did Doug Weller say that Britannica is unreliable ?", here.
"However, User:Wikaviani accepts a book published by none other than RW Press only because it supports the "Iranian origin" narrative." odd how you seem to ignore the other source written by a food historian, Gil Marks and also this edit of mines where i say that i don't support any sharp claim like X or Y invented ice cream ... I usually assume good faith, but i confess that in your case, it doesn't seem obvious to me.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So Doug Weller treated Britannica as an unreliable source in 2017. First, how should I know that? Second, he still thinks that way and all of Wikipedia should throw out Britannica from now on?
(On the Gil Marks source see more below.) CABF45 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many articles from Britannica are written by the editors of Britannica (like the one you cited by the way), this makes that encyclopedia unreliable, some articles are written by expert sources, they are generally considered reliable, but this is not our point here, this report is about your disruptive editing and inability to find out if a source is reliable or not along with POV pushing and refusal to listen what other editors tell you. Just one example, i said i disagree with your last edit at Ice cream and so did Spudlace below, if you were here to build an encyclopedia, you would have self reverted and tried to achieve consensus on the article's talk page.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I engaged in discussion on the talk page throughout the process even if you're trying to give the impression that I didn't.
You only accept sources that support the Iranian origin of ice cream. Remember when Spudlace tried to remove the history section and export it into frozen desserts, you simply reverted him (without seeking concensus). CABF45 (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted Spudlace and i stand for that by WP:ONUS, the onus is on the editor who makes new edits to achieve consensus (in other words, Spudlace) and i did so because they did a terrible job, leaving the section without historical informations and with many cites errors, i told them that and i feel like they got me, but this report is not about Spudlace, it's about you.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And another editor also had problems with the history section, there's still Template:Self-contradictory placed on the history section for a reason. So "consensus" seems more and more like the will of User:Wikaviani. CABF45 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template has nothing to do with my edits or Spudlace's edits, Andy explained the reason for it on the article's talk page, your comment sounds like a nonsense. Also, that editor had a clash with you and your edits, you seem to ignore that, once more.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do agree with Andy on the usage of the Template:Self-contradictory at the history section even if we had an unrelated "clash". I don't know what you consider nonsense, just read Andy's explanation of why he thinks much of the history section should be redone.
Again: the present "consensus" version means the will of User:Wikaviani, neither AndytheGrump nor Spudlace wanted to keep it as it is. CABF45 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When User:Wikaviani is warned (and again) that the Gil Marks source he pushes is not exactly relevant, he simply ignores it and forces it into the article anyway.
He also tries to create above the impression that I didn't listen to the discussion and just went on editing. I abandoned several above mentioned references even when I considered them reliable and relevant.
User:Spudlace effectively begged User:Wikaviani to stop guarding this article. CABF45 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had disagreements with User:Wikaviani on this article but not pertaining to this new dispute. I did mention on the talk page that I think some of these sources pass reliability, but I don't support inclusion of CABF45's contested edit, as it is currently written. CABF45 has chosen to ignore my input, which I don't take personally. From what I can see, the content about China is still in article. So far, I think all the editors are sincere by trying to improve the article. Spudlace (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment : at the end of the day, Spudlace recognised the relevance of the source and my edits [29].---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Spudlace and Wikaviani, as to the solution of the content dispute, could you live with this proposal per WP:Balance:

Multiple sources claim the ice cream is of Chinese origin, while multiple other references suggest an Iranian origin.

Adding references respectively, and done. CABF45 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, because ice cream is not either Chinese or Iranian, it's the result of a long and multicultural process that is quite well explained in the article (at least, before your last edit). This noticeboard is not the article's talk page, thus, not the relevant place for this discussion.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that for you "this long and multicultural process" always starts with Iran even when multiple reliable sources claim it started in China. That's why I cited WP:Balance. CABF45 (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the problem is that so far, not a single editor has agreed with any of your edits at Ice cream, yet you keep pushing your POV with unreliable sources, refuse to listen to what other editors say, ignore Wikipedia guidelines even when other editors remind you about that. I rest my case. Goodnight.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I used more reliable sources than the ones you're pushing. Spudlace agreed with using the ABC-CLIO source, it was you who went against concensus, but I didn't want an edit war.
I would agree with Spudlace's proposal to completely remove most of the history section, and only deal with the modern history of ice cream, I just didn't want to start an edit war with you.
I also perfectly understand why Andy placed the Template:Self-contradictory on the history section, it was you who wanted to remove that template. CABF45 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Closing admin: Please read Talk:Ice_cream carefully as some of the diffs provided by User:Wikaviani are quite misleading. Thank you. CABF45 (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since my brief involvement in this nonsense has been brought up here, I might as well express an opinion on the problems with this article. And start by repeating what I wrote earlier on my talk page: ...I don't think that we should necessarily hold one contributor solely responsible for the mess in the ice cream article history section. Sadly, content concerning the history of food tends to attract all sorts of POV-pushers (often motivated by nationalism), and to be based around questionable sources written more for entertainment than accuracy... It seems to me that contributors to the article are working under a false premise: that it is possible to state who 'invented ice cream' in any definitive manner. One can certainly find sources that make such definitive claims, but them doing so does little to inspire confidence in their validity as sources. When does 'frozen dessert' (which presumably dates back to when some enterprising, or possibly lost, hominid first gathered fruit in frozen regions) become 'ice cream'? And even if there was a single agreed definition of exactly what constitutes ice cream (I've not seen one), how likely is it that such an event would be recorded for posterity? The most that credible historians can say about the subject is that frozen desserts of one form or another were reported in place X or Y at date Z. And maybe suggest that some such descriptions seem to match what would now resemble 'ice cream'. That isn't an assertion that said dessert was 'invented' anywhere in particular, merely that it was described. Wikipedia contributors shouldn't engage themselves in trying to provide definitive answers to 'historical questions' that actual historians should know better than to try to answer. Trying to do so so is not only a disservice to readers, but a fool's errand, since it inevitably results in the sort of ongoing disagreements we see here, usually only 'resolved' by seeing who can make the most stubborn pig-headed and repetitive arguments, and drive anyone else away from the debate. If 'winning' that way is what matters, frankly Wikipedia could do better without such contributors. And said contributors might do well to ask themselves whether they could find better things to do with their lives... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a mature comment, my 2 cents...
I offered a compromise per WP:Balance, I also offered the removal of the "ancient history of ice cream" like Spudlace did earlier.
User:Wikaviani rejected both of those solutions in the name of the Iranian origin narrative... CABF45 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have explained my reasons above and they have nothing to do with "the Iranian origin narrative" ... ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then why don't you support the compromise?
The Chinese origin is supported by Encyclopædia Britannica, an ABC-CLIO, a Royal Society of Chemistry and a John Wiley & Sons reference.
The Iranian origin is supported by an RW Press source and Gil Marks.
(Yes, I know, Gil Marks is a "food historian", who mostly wrote cookbooks. However, Christopher Cumo (ABC-CLIO) is a historian of agriculture, and Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat did write A History of Food, which John Wiley & Sons decided to publish. That's good enough for me. I also think that natural sciences - including chemistry - have been crucial in the development of the ice cream, so I would also keep the Royal Society of Chemistry source.)
We could also remove the ancient history section and start with the discovery of the endothermic effect as AndytheGrump suggested. CABF45 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All this has been discussed already and the current version of the article is the result of a consensus, your insistance to bring back the same tired unreliable sources for this topic is for the least disruptive. @Admins : you can close this without action, at your discretion. I am not interested to discuss this matter with a user who fails to get the point.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "consensus" is you agreeing with User:Spudlace. (For now. As pointed out above, Spudlace had very different plans for this article originally.) User:AndytheGrump is also in disagreement with your "consensus", just read his take above.
So we are throwing out Encyclopædia Britannica, an ABC-CLIO, a Royal Society of Chemistry and a John Wiley & Sons reference, while we are keeping RW Press and Gil Marks.
I agree: Admins, please close this without action, this has been a content dispute masquerading as an ANI Report. CABF45 (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This report has never been about a content dispute, it's about an editor (you) repeatedly adding unsourced/poorly sourced content.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never added unsourced content, and it was you who decided what was properly sourced and what not. WP:OWN. CABF45 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
said the guy who has been reverted by all the other involved editors ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You too have been reverted by other editors. As said above, Spudlace originally wanted to remove most of the history section, User:AndytheGrump still does.
User:Spudlace effectively begged User:Wikaviani to stop guarding this article.
Spudlace warned Wikaviani (and again) that the Gil Marks source he pushes is not exactly relevant.
You have now a temporary ceasefire with Spudlace which you call 'consensus'. CABF45 (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Always the same tired arguments like "Spudlace begged Wikaviani ...", people may disagree at the beginning of the process, but since on Wikipedia, editors work primarily with consensus, they discuss in order to achieve said consensus, which is what happened between me and the two other editors. The only one who has not any consensus for his edits, is you, all your edits were reverted by 3 different users, thus please spare me your chatter about begging and WP:OWN.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AndytheGrump doesn't have a "consensus" with you, just read his take above.
Your edits have been reverted by two different users, plus you also had a debate with AndytheGrump regarding the Template: Self-contradictory placed at the history section. That's quite the difference.
When there are 4 editors arguing on the talk page and 2 agree, it's a stretch to talk about "consensus."
You also forget that I abandoned sources that I still consider reliable only because of said "consensus". (ABC-CLIO, Royal Society of Chemistry.)
BTW, @admins, I quote User:Wikaviani from just above: @Admins : you can close this without action, at your discretion. CABF45 (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussing with you sounds like a waste of time, you misrepresent what people say and the threads about this issue.
  • "AndytheGrump doesn't have a "consensus" with you" : he does not have any consensus with you either, i would even say that the editor who "might do well to ask themselves whether they could find better things to do with their lives" is you, not me, given these comments [30], [31].
  • "You also forget that I abandoned sources that I still consider reliable" sounds like you are still unable to understand why sources like BBC news and the royal society of chemistry are unreliable for food history, despite all the explanations provided by so many editors, that's quite baffling, you should take a look at context matters, which says :"Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible", isn't that clear enough ??---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The natural sciences (including Chemistry) were crucial in the development of ice cream (that's why the Royal Society of Chemistry reference is relevant), and the ABC-CLIO book was written by a historian of agriculture, it is a relevant source. Maguelonne Toussaint-Samat wrote "A History of Food", which was published by John Wiley & Sons. (Yes, she also wrote cookbooks, just like your favorite Gil Marks did.)
  • The Iranian origin is supported by an RW Press source and Gil Marks, still you insist on the exclusive Iranian origin of ice cream.
  • The fact that the current version (your "consensus") goes against Encyclopædia Britannica is in itself baffling.
User:Spudlace effectively begged you to stop guarding this article. CABF45 (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you seem unable to read our guidelines properly and keep repeating the same nonsenses again and again, i'm done with you here.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you seem unable to read our guidelines properly and keep repeating the same nonsenses again and again, i'm done with you here. CABF45 (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This noticeboard is not a place to continue an argument. NytharT.C 23:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's why i asked admins to close this, since it seems that they are not inclined to take any other action.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can an administrator look at User:Bedford? They have a few Neo-Confederate userboxes on their userpage.

Here is one example: User:Bedford/userboxes/User Confederate TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woah, according to this list, Bedford is a former administrator. TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User has only made 10 edits since 2016 and half of those were responding to someone posting something on their talk page. If we ignore them, they'll go away on their own.--v/r - TP 01:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
unfortunately the tone of their responses at MfD doesn't indicate any such likelihood. Definitely does not inspire collaborative efforts. Star Mississippi 02:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A former admin who was removed for cause by Jimbo Wales 14(!) years ago. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think this user is a concern as of now. They've made few edits in recent years, and from their user page it appears they once had a somewhat distinguished career (They are a Senior Editor II and have multiple barnstars). I just think we should keep an eye on them for any signs of future disruptive editing. No action needs to be taken. Iamreallygoodatcheckers[email protected] 02:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a username that could be read as problematic with obnoxious, offensive userboxes that they're calling @Dronebogus "childish" for nominating. Multiple barnstars and being a "Senior Editor II" are frankly irrelevant. Star Mississippi 02:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I agree that barnstars and editor awards are completely irrelevant, the fact that they haven't really edited in years, except to defend these UBXs that have no chance of survival it appears, absolutely is relevant. I'm not sure what the desired outcome here is. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there's anything we can do, but I was instead making clear that we don't really need to look for future disruption. It's already here and hiding in plain sight. Star Mississippi 02:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To say the name "could be KKK inspired" is an uncalled for stretch. My personal first name (that I haven't disclosed) happens to be shared with a confederate general, but that doesn't make my name KKK inpired. Iamreallygoodatcheckers[email protected] 02:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is worth pointing out that his authored images state Bedford is part of his legal name. I'd recommend a retraction of the allegation of the KKK inspired name. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your AGF is stronger than mine, but I have rephrased. If there's specific syntax for a redaction, please consider this my permission to edit my comment as I'm about to log off. Star Mississippi 03:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that Bedford also displays this userbox on their userpage, which has a fascist symbol. Thank Dronebogus for noticing and nominating that for deletion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bedford was desysopped by Jimmy Wales in 2008 after a similar debate. I think that was the last active intervention by Jimmy in enwiki management. I don't think much has changed since then with Bedford, but he hasn't terribly active since then either. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Indef Bedford There is no place on Wikipedia for sympathizers with racism and fascism. This user is clearly NOTHERE, and their recent edits show it. For example, editing in support of the "war of northern aggression" myth [32], and responding to deletion requests with personal attacks. Consider KEEP I want to have a warning before someone who clearly needs to compensate for certain..deficiencies...tries to delete all my hard work. I don't follow commons, so I have no warning. Please get a life, and stop spamming my emails with all your silly deletion requests [33]. Not to mention today's repeated personal attacks at one of the MfDs regarding their racist userboxes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Recent edits? Aren't those from like 2014 and 2015? Andre🚐 03:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    it's a pattern of editing going back a decade+. We don't need to wait another year for their inevitable disruption by way of tirades and outward racism. PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it's not a "pattern of editing going back a decade." It's some edits FROM a decade ago. To suggest that someone with ten mainspace edits over the last eight years is going to "inevitably" disrupt anything is little short of hysteria. Ravenswing 03:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering these are all within their last 50 edits, yes, I believe "recent" is appropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am in no way defending this user or their edits, but I don't think you can be judgedindeffed for something from 7 years ago. And I agree his messages are uncooperative. I have 0 sympathy for his views, but I can't agree that these are "recent," that's misleading at best. Andre🚐 03:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you actually looked at their diffs in the MFD, from today? PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you actually looked at their diffs in the MFD, from today? PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I saw the term "childish" and repeated some kind of counterfactual confederate troll b.s. Yeah it's offensive, so delete his userboxes and he'll probably go away again. Blocks and bans are not supposed to be punitive. We don't have to tolerate him if he starts making bad edits. It looks like he hasn't even edited in years. As someone with zero love for racism or fascism of any stripe, I don't see the argument. Delete his personal attacks and racist content, and if he persists in re-adding them, then a block might be merited. Not if he's just sitting there for years doing nothing. Andre🚐 03:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The editor was on those MfDs within 3 hours of them being posted. I'm not sure where the inactivity argument comes from, a 3 hour response time to an MfD doesn't indicate inactivity to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Huh? But before that the editor had no other edits for ages? They undoubtedly got an email of the talk page notification. Andre🚐 03:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If that is the case, his immediate response to a talk page notification was to immediately accuse editors of ignorance and childishness. I still don't see how that is a reason to NOT indef him. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • indef I'm with TAOT. Wikipedia has no room for people who openly support racism (and whos response to any criticism is "Get a life", something Bedford has said often.) Not to mention Wikipedia is very much not the place for revisionist history, nor can we trust an editor who is so wildly out of touch with facts and reality. PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Indef Support indef, per these three diffs, clearly WP:NOTHERE. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Indef, hopefully it's not an unpopular opinion that neo-confederates shouldn't be Wikipedia editors. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose indef - If he's not edit-warring, vandalising pages or pushing a political PoV on pages? then don't ban. Merely remove the userbox-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No ban/block at this time per my comments above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers[email protected] 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strongly warn and issue civility warnings to the user. Andre🚐 03:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would support a warning as described by Andrevan Iamreallygoodatcheckers[email protected] 03:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose indef: I take a back seat to no one in my disgust at this fellow's politics. But Andre is entirely right. This guy isn't an active editor. It's been a decade since he has been. This is a bunch of outrage for the sake of outrage. Absolutely, delete his offensive infoboxes (the MfDs of which are well on their way), but indeffing him for no better reason than he's a cheap and convenient target -- and made some objectionable edits many years ago -- plays rather dramatically into the hands of those who just love to paint Wikipedia as the haunt of extremist and intolerant liberals. The easiest way to avoid being smeared as a kneejerk lynch mob is not to be one. Ravenswing 03:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An indef is preventative. It prevents further disruption from this user, which is all that leaving him free to edit will accomplish. He has no intention of building an encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He has no intention of EDITING this encyclopedia ... as plainly witnessed by the plain fact that he hasn't been doing so. This isn't merely an exercise in bullying, it's a pretty dern pointless one. I want a far, far better reason to indef someone than to pound my chest as I gaze into the mirror and chortle "Hah, I got another red state bastard!" Ravenswing 03:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose User is retired and not in the public WP consciousness, and the only reason it has re-entered public consciousness is because people decided to rustle through said user's userpage and the user has jousted a bit in the subsequent MFD. If the purpose actually was to not advertise the user's political beliefs, it would be obvious what the appropriate tactical/strategic course of action would be Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support indef - This is exactly what WP:NONAZIS is about. --MuZemike 04:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blank the userpage, delete associated userboxen, and remove the polemic material - otherwise do not block. The polemic shit can and should be deleted, but as they're hardly editing I don't see any real point to 86'ing them at this juncture. Now, mind you, if he decides to reinsert it, then by all means put the vengeful gaze of $deity on them, but I'd rather not block a user who's hardly editing anyway for an indef without trying lesser measures first to address any disruption, and it seems to me the easiest route is to blank off the offending material. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Concur with blank+delete+remove Andre🚐 04:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    +1. Lectonar (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I second that. Quandarie12:06, 2022-08-15
  • weak support for indef he’s retired from productive editing and now only wants to be an uncivil nuisance to anyone “triggered” by his extremely offensive userboxes. Also, his last edit before the UBX nominations was calling an LGBT-related invite “garbage”, so add likely homophobia to list of project-incompatible beliefs. Dronebogus (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose indef for now, but could lean towards indef depending on their behavior with regards to the MfD discussions. Otherwise, basically the action Jeske outlined above. User is inactive so an indef would be strictly punitive, not preventative. If they step out of line (if they come back) after this, then yeah nuke 'em, but it's a non-issue at this point. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose block at this time. Blocks are to stop disruption of the encyclopedia. We should not carry out ideological purges. This editor has made only 18 edits in the last seven years, but they made 13,347 edits in 2008. This editor may hold views that most of us (including me) consider reprehensible, but they are not disrupting the encyclopedia at this time. They are effectively retired. If they start actively disrupting the encyclopedia, then I would definitely support an indefinite block. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose block, essentially per Cullen328. Problematic userboxes can be deleted by consensus (and I see a couple of discussions are happening on those lines). But if Bedford is not editing to push his political views, and is not harming or disrupting the encyclopedia, there's nothing that we need a block to prevent. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and Ravenswing said it well too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support community ban from the project, after having seen his odious Facebook utterances. (And yes, I know that's off-wiki, but it shows he's such a repulsive individual that he needs to be shown the door.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Cullen328 and GoodDay. — Czello 08:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • First of all, we should just ban issues-based userboxen already. Secondly, I agree with Cullen and particularly Curbon7. If Bedford decides to continue spending his time insulting people who take exception to his support for an organization devoted to upholding the enslavement of Black people as chattel, then I imagine someone will quietly indef as NOTHERE and that will be that. (And I'm fine with being that someone.) But he's not (yet) at such a level of disruption to warrant that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 10:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My eyes got a workout for all the rolling. You have an obvious user just wanting to find reasons to be offended, and instead of telling him to cool it you are going after me. The userboxes in question are at least 14 years old so obviously there has been no issue until someone desperately needed them to be one. The people wanting to think I'm fascist are the ones who act the most like them as they are the ones who can't handle anyone who disagrees with them. I saw someone complain about another userbox I had which I did not create, but I assume that icon was not there originally there as I do not remember that icon. Yes, I was an admin before it was removed because I stood up for the DYK process when some women couldn't handle a factoid that reminded them that men find some women attractive. This is just a witchhunt that rewards those who are looking for reasons to be offended. You already damaged WP by chasing productive users like me away; do you really want to keep the process going?--King Bedford I Seek his grace 10:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

off topic discussion
  • Sundostund, describing this diff as "this homophobic remark", is stretching it too much. It is a removal of a massposted message. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    חוקרת, there is nothing wrong in a removal of a massposted message. The issue is about describing that LGBT–themed message as a "garbage" in the edit summary. —Sundostund (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A massposted message. You could see it in the way you frame it, but it can also be seen otherwise. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I certainly see it in that way. At the same time, I am letting other users to make their own conclusions about it. —Sundostund (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Taken in context it’s very likely homophobic Dronebogus (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If Bedford took onus with all auto-posted messages, I could see giving a pass. There are hundreds of such automated messages on Bedford's talk, and he hasn't removed them. He was invited to a different Wiki event in Indy he felt no need to delete, just a month later. Certainly indicates a problem with THE message, not A message.
    With that said, I don't see that being a cause to indef, there appear to be much better reasons than potential homophobia. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Deleting unsolicited messages on a user's talk page is now evidence of "homophobia"? If that's the definition we're using, we're going to need to get a lot more banhammers... Buffs (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Like I said, if he took onus with all of them, I'd see it being a pass. But his talk page suggests he only took onus with the pride invite. Which, as I said, I don't think is enough to block him for anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So he only took issue with the Pride invite. Maybe he thinks that open sexual displays of any kind are inappropriate (which is what many/most of these festivals either entail or endorse). If you post an unsolicited invite to my talk page regarding sexual topics, I'm going to delete as well. That isn't homophobic...sexually conservative, to be sure, but hardly homophobic. Buffs (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The level of WP:AGF required here is beyond the standard of reasonable doubt. He thinks trans people are worthy of mockery because he thinks they’re ugly, not because of his “sexually conservative” values. Dronebogus (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would say that there's a very thin line between claiming to be “sexually conservative” and defending homophobia; various claims of "conservative” values often are bywords for something much sinister. Also, his stance on trans people is just deplorable. —Sundostund (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Buffs: it seems very hard to me to reconcile "sexually conservative" with the DYK Bedford proposed [34] then got desysoped over after they wheel warred to try and keep it on the main page, talked about feminazis who were jealous of attractive women etc; and then followed up after their de-sysop with repeatedly saying they were gangraped. Unless you mean they're opposed to it when it involves gay people but are fine with it otherwise, in which case that is indeed homophobic. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Guys thats socially conservative... Sexually conservative is when you believe that coitus is the central element of sexuality which does overlap with social conservatism but unless any of you have been to bed with Bedford or have a source which says he isn't into oral, manual, anal, or kinky non-coitus based sex you need to say socially conservative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sex sells. Las Vegas is based on that. It doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but it will grab attention. Likewise, it was also factual and had community approval, so it should have stood rather than be unilaterally removed (unless I'm misunderstanding the situation...if he was undoing multiple Admins after a WP:AN discussion, that's different). We've done PLENTY of front page things that were designed to grab headlines/attention and I don't see anything wrong with this particular selection. I've seen nothing about "gangraped" at all. If so, that's indeed abhorrent (links would be appreciated). I think that his choice of actions was inappropriate (wheel warring) as were his choice of words to describe why he was demoted (wheel warring and name calling). From what I can see, I think those who took it down were also in the wrong when they unilaterally took it down as it was an agreed-upon DYK. I can't say Jimbo was wrong as he, at the time, had the power to revoke such access unilaterally and at his own discretion. I don't think it was wise and he should have let the community handle it (they would likely have rapidly come to the same conclusion), but that's really not a matter of discussion here.
    As for the Gay Pride parade, I'm personally opposed to such promiscuous/prominent sexual behavior of all kinds. This would include such open displays of sex, the sort that are prominent at gay pride parades, free love festivals, public displays of sex positivity, and a number of other sex exhibits that are available in public locations. It doesn't matter to me if it is heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, or any flavor of LGBTQPIA+!? That sort of behavior should be reserved for non-public settings and I'm not a fan of them...ALL of them. That said, I also completely support it being legal and they should be free to do it! Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal. Public expression is free speech in America and, though I disagree with them, I will fight to the death for their right to do so.
    You want to define that as socially conservative? Fine. "Conservative with sexual matters". Anything else? Fine. It all means the same thing that I clearly intended and described.
    Lastly, please don't mistake my support for process/procedure for complete support of his actions. Buffs (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Did you really just claim that Wikipedia:Meetup/Indianapolis/Wiki_Loves_Pride_2022 will "include open displays of sex" ? You think sex is going to happen in the IUPUI University Library's Ashby Browsing Room? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The editathon focused on improving articles ABOUT those events. Art + Feminism was also a sponsor of the event, a decidedly leftist organization. My entire point is that he didn't want to participate and thought it was "garbage". Equating that with "HOMOPHOBIA!!!!" is just people jumping to conclusions. Buffs (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually its *your* words Buffs which are being equated with homophobia, because they're ridiculously homophobic... They're also just wrong, I've been adjacent to a number of pride events in my life (one of the largest in the country goes right down the street under my office window) and "open displays of sex" just isn't whats happening. You're really on a roll here: promoting Nazi ideology, Confederate apologism, almost comically stupid homophobia... Why do you keep digging this hole? Do you want to be indeffed as well? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Buffs: You do know that the "A" in LGBTQPIA+!? stands for Asexual, right? Do you know how silly it sounds for you to suggest a pride event which includes asexuals (which, oh hey, that includes me) would involve open displays of sex? With that kind of description, I really don't think you really seem to understand what a pride parade actually.. is?
    That's also just straight up ignoring the fact that this was an advertisement for an editathon. –MJLTalk 06:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh lordy...we're really going to go down that road? Perhaps I meant "A" for "Ally" or "Androgeny" or...
    This right here is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. I'm trying to be inclusive and the only thing you can focus on is how I allegedly (OOH! Maybe it was "Allegedly"!) got a single letter "wrong". And because I did, that somehow "proves" I don't understand what pride a pride parade is (likewise, the editathon focused on editing such articles on those topics, ergo, they are involved).
    If you think that proves I'm not "woke" enough, you're going to take anything/everything I say the way you want to interpret it. You are going to see what you want to see and discard the rest. A discussion with you beyond this is pointless. Buffs (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Buffs: The A stands for Asexual. It does not stand for anything else (the pamphlet you linked does not seem reliable for this information).
    I never said your weird description somehow "proves" [you] don't understand what pride a pride parade is. I also never said you got a single letter "wrong" (because you didn't?). Lastly, I never said you weren't "woke" enough. All of these phrases includes quotes as if you are quoting me, but you are not. I never said any of these words nor does anything I say even remotely come close to meaning anything close to them.
    What I said was just trying to inform you that the LGBT community is composed of a large group of people who do not enjoy sex. You really don't seem to really get that, and you are being very weird about this discussion. –MJLTalk 03:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would make a note of order here that this has strayed significantly from the topic at hand, and would caution editors involved in this whole above discussion, myself included, that this has, in fact, become a topic of discussion completely independent of the Bedford ban, and this has now been taken in a direction that, if continued and heated, could wind up with a whole lot more sanctions being levied against people this ANI originally wasn't about. Maybe this isn't the argument we want to be having, or should be having, under this ANI. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you're going to accuse people of being a homophobe, at least have the common decency to say it to their face. I've deleted that unsigned remark. Part of this discussion is a very weak accusation of homophobia. As such, it is not off-topic. Buffs (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Indef as the nomination of an indef on the basis of (what seems to be primarily) ideology smacks a bit of 'user has incorrect opinions.' I've seen WP:NONAZIS brought up above but there is a reason that NONAZIS is an essay, not a policy. I understand that this nomination is said to also be on the grounds of disruption, but I find the evidence for this is fairly weak. A warning about attitude may be in order, but an indef is disproportionate. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I haven’t heard the name 'User:Bedford' for a long time, I remember when he was, I think, the last admin to be desysoped by Jimbo using his Godlike powers back in the day. Bedford has contributed very little for so long - a de facto retirement, I guess - that it shouldn’t be any big deal to him whether the user boxes go. I suggest he be left to return to his 'retirement'. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose indef - Indef blocks are intended to stop imminent and ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, not to express our collective outrage or to tear down Confederate statues and monuments.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He’s disrupting Wikipedia right now, every single recent comment is basically just trolling to “own the libs”, which is plainly WP:NOTHERE Dronebogus (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose indef. Bedford isn't editing, hadn't really edited this year until replying to the userbox deletion nominations. Indeffing will achieve nothing positive, and would be seen as by Bedford as a "badge of honor". The userboxes themselves will be gone soon. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mr. Crenshaw, as evidenced by the contents of his userpage and the social media accounts linked therefrom, is not the least bit coy about his political opinions and seems to have held them for years without much deviation. If he continues to let this account lie dormant after this episode, he will be swiftly re-forgotten. If he doesn't, he will get himself banned, and then re-forgotten. Same difference. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stood up for the DYK process when some women couldn't handle a factoid that reminded them that men find some women attractive weren't you desysopped by Jimbo for your misogyny too? And yet here you are, 14 years later still doing the same shit. If that isn't a pattern, I don't know what is. This community's absolute unwillingness to deal with homophobia, misogyny and racism is actually astounding. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Wikipedia does not sanction for thoughtcrimes. Sanctions are reserved for actions that are counter to collaborative participation. The last thing we need to be doing is sanctioning someone for simply have a minority point of view, no matter how offensive someone might find it. Dennis Brown - 13:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:NONAZIS begs to differ. Allowing rampant misogyny like I've pointed out, along with racism and homophobia are more than just "minority opinions." They're toxic and violent ideologies that don't belong on an encyclopedia and are inherently at odds with building an encyclopedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is an essay that doesn't enjoy wide spread acceptance. There is a HUGE difference in someone claiming they want to preserve parts of their heritage that aren't about racism, and someone saying "Hitler was right". I'm not saying I agree with him, but currently, as he has presented the information, it isn't breaking any policy. We don't block people just because we disagree with them. It is a dangerous precedent to start blocking people for ideas rather than actions, and it isn't supported in policy. We block for actions, not thoughts. If he comes back and spews racist ideas, I would be the first to block him, but no one has presented proof he has, ever. Dennis Brown - 13:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually it does, you can run a quarry for yourself to see the numerous WP:NONAZI blocks. Confederecy isn't "heritage" - that's bullshit fed to kids about the lie that is the "War of Northern Aggression" and it appears this conspiracy theory has even reached the depths of Wikipedia editors. So is racism where your blocking ability ends? The blatant misogyny isn't enough? PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nevermind the fact that his ardent defense of the confederacy here and elsewhere is at odds with actual proven fact, but I guess that also doesn't matter for Wikipedia? PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Where exactly is his "ardent defense of the confederacy"? Buffs (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:NONAZIS is not a policy, just someone's essay. And I'm not even convinced Bedford can be called a Nazi. — Czello 13:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree entirely with Dennis Brown's assessment. — Czello 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FWIW - Who goes around or would want to go around, checking over other editors' userpages to find something offensive? There must be better ways, to spend ones' time. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would argue that extends to someone who comments on every single ANI thread. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm happy that I'm not one of those who comments on every single ANI thread. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Indef So what if Bedford isn't actively contributing to mainspace anymore? If he was, then I'd say that might actually be a reason against indef since it would show he's capable of productively contributing to the project. Since he isn't doing that... Why give this guy a platform? What is there to gain with keeping someone like Bedford around?
    The community made a mistake by not kicking Bedford out a decade ago. It's time we correct for that. –MJLTalk 14:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose block - unless and until somebody can demonstrate that the user has been putting the level of horseshit on his userpage into articles or talk pages (and yes it is 100% horseshit, believing idea that the Confederacy wasnt racist is IMO prima facie evidence that one lacks the competence to edit anything related to the American Civil War, modern race relations, or nearly anything about America and its history). There are lots of editors I think are racist, or homophobic, or anti-whatever. Until their editing shows that however that is a personal opinion of mine that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Also, a bit shocked how he had these userbox when he ran for a successful RFA and they werent even mentioned. What a time 2008 was, maybe I could have been an admin after all. nableezy - 16:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well this is going back a ways, but this certainly raises the eyebrows. An editor placing in the mainspace that it was the War of Northern Aggression and that the Civil War is non-neutral is so close to a KKK talking point that I seriously wonder where WP:NONAZIS comes in to play. Even if it was 14 years ago, would support a wide ranging topic ban on anything related to the Civil War or modern US politics. Including any revert on his userpage of anything removed of it. nableezy - 16:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The "War of Northern Aggression" is a common phrase in the South. Equating that with support for the KKK is a HUGE step too far. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Putting in the mainspace text referring to the Civil War as the title "the War of Northern Aggression" and claiming the term "Civil War" (a completely anodyne phrase that means a war between opposing forces in the same country) is POV is very clearly pushing KKK level bullshit in encyclopedia articles. If you cant see that then I question your ability to edit anything related to American politics, past or present, too. nableezy - 21:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This quality of argumentation is pretty standard for Buffs, see e.g. [35]. JBL (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Valid question whether he or GoodDay are adding anything beyond bytes to this discussion. Star Mississippi 01:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Star Mississippi: Well in GoodDay's case it's a chronic problem; my request nine months ago didn't help, but perhaps a polite word from an administrator? --JBL (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    GoodDay and Buffs are playing devil’s advocate for the sake of the argument. Even the non-CBAN/block voters aren’t exactly on Bedford’s side. Dronebogus (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    JBL, you're already following my every movement after you've been asked to stop harassing me. I could argue that your continued actions and disparaging remarks are a (continued) violation of WP:CIVIL/WP:HARASS. I have 2 instances of discussions you joined in the last 24 hours ONLY because I was in there first. Kindly back off. Buffs (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Listen I know you like to fantasize about me but even so you're already following my every movement is a little over the top for a public forum like this, don't you think? JBL (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do not use that terminology, however, it is in common use in the South. It's hardly "KKK-level bullshit". I see no evidence he said "Civil War" is POV pushing and, in fact, he uses/used it on his user page. Seems more than a little contradictory. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support community ban, very clearly NOTHERE. nableezy - 19:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose indef at the current time, I see no indication that they're going to significantly participate in WP in the future so this feels more punitive than preventative. I must admit this is a bit of an odd (some could perhaps righty say wikilawyer-like) position but if they do choose to come back in a substantive sense I'd support an immediate indef. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure why the idea is "Let an editor who only pops in to cause problems stay around". The years of inactivity, but then immediate activity (within 3 1/2 hours to remove a pride invitation, within 3 hours to dispute the MfDs) doesn't suggest he's that far gone, and the fact that his comments since the MfDs started have been to call people childish and ignorant, and advocating no one take Wiki seriously as a result of the MfDs doesn't support the idea of keeping him around. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was going to sit this one out, on the grounds that someone who edits so infrequently can be causing very little disruption. However, Bedford's own post above has persuaded me to comment. His contributions over the few years have been a handful of gnomish mainspace edits, an edit to their user talk page with what an edit summary that sure as hell looks like homophobia, some insulting comments at MfD, and a post here which is both misogynistic and dismissive of people's concerns: I view that as a net negative. As such, I would weakly support an indef block, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter unless he becomes active again. Girth Summit (blether) 16:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With respect to the thoughtful comments above, I have blocked Bedford indefinitely. As I noted on their talk page, they not only admit that they're not here to build an encyclopedia, but they also maintain views which are inherently incompatible with being a member of the community. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Although I did not support the block above, I will endorse this action now as a valid closure of this discussion. Andre🚐 17:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not going to challenge this, but I think it would have been best for the community to decide whether or not Bedford should be blocked rather than you exclusively. Iamreallygoodatcheckers[email protected] 17:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As someone who supported the block, I agree with this. I would support removing the block until consensus can be reached. This is a WP:CBAN discussion, and the community hasn't truly come to a consensus yet. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Indef I agree with MJL that the years of inactivity actually cut towards an indef rather than against. If he'd been usefully contributing to Wikipedia recently then whether to indef him for defending a bunch of racist userboxes would be a complicated issue. But he hasn't, so it's not. Loki (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Indef Per Praxidicase. A firm no to bending over backwards for accomodating racists. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Ravenswing, Cullen328, and GoodDay. Buffs (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to run that one back again, complete with misrepresentation of it being a "Hezbollah userbox". nableezy - 17:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it’s not a Hezbollah box then why is it just coincidentally green and yellow? Dronebogus (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can read the aforementioned MFD if youd like. The userbox is about Wikipedia, but again if youd like to raise it in a place where it isnt off-topic whataboutism then feel free. nableezy - 00:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:CBAN, discussions MUST be kept open 24 hours before sanctions are applied. For site bans, the discussion must be kept open for 72 hours except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours. This discussion was open less than 24 hours, there is no clear consensus, and a block has been applied. I ask for the block to be removed and the discussion to continue, the block was clearly premature. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree this thread has not reached a consensus on a community ban, nor reached the required timeframe. My block was based on the reasoning I left on the user's talk page, much as I'd have blocked the user if I found these edits while recent change patrolling. Discussion can (and should!) continue here, and the block can be upgraded to a ban should consensus arise. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You said "With respect to the thoughtful comments above I have blocked Bedford indefinitely", meaning you are taking this ANI as the reason for the block. You listed this discussion as "With respect to" as for a reason for the block. It appears you imposed the block to enforce a CBAN, which has not taken effect through consensus yet. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think she meant that while respectfully noting the opposition above, TNT made, as an independent action by an uninvolved admin, a normal indef-block that is not a community ban and one that any admin can make if they think it necessary. And if there is consensus to unblock then Im sure she will abide by that, but as of right now theres a normal admin block and no CBAN. nableezy - 18:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listing this ANI as the reason for the block sure as heck makes it look like it's a CBAN. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See below — I did not list this thread as the reason for the block. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many blocks happen as a result of ANI, near immediately, with ANI cited in the block reason and are not CBANS. No one has proposed a CBAN either. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one has proposed a CBAN? So we're discussing (voting, debating, trying to garner consensus in the commmunity) whether or not to indef him as a matter of routine discussion? Formal or not, this is a CBAN discussion. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commas are important, no? I meant that I respect the thoughtful comments here, but that my block was for the reasons I left on the user's talk page. In that message, I again give due respect to the community process, but enact a block for the reasons given. Lastly, I do not mention this thread in my block reason recorded in the logTheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commas are indeed important, and I understand now, I still feel the block is premature and circumvents the community process here. We aren't done discussing it, but we are now, because you blocked them. And I support the block, I just think this was way too fast. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
collapsing lengthy digression about Nazis etc. that adds little to the overall discussion; editors can make their own judgement here
  • Absolutely. This is an absurd rush to judgement and a clear violation of procedure. Nominating someone's user boxes for deletion and then indef blocking him when he defends them is absurd. I se no evidence of racism at all other than "symbols" (in fact, just one symbol) which, at least arguably, has more than one meaning which can be benign and another that can be historical. Buffs (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because debating whether or not a confederate editor should be blocked is the ideal use of editor time. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you are going to accuse someone of being a "confederate" as others have accused him of being a Nazi/racist, you should certainly have evidence to back it up. Buffs (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    His own off-wiki social media page (which he links himself on his user page, this is information he puts out there himself) identifies himself as "Confederate American". Just saying. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He also calls himself a Sphenisciform (a flightless bird), so I don't think that can be taken as a clear sign of "support of racism/nazisim". In fact, his userbox seemed to indicate he wanted to distance himself from racism/slavery (the exact opposite of what he seemed to be advocating). Now, I think he's wrong/immature, but I think that's a VERY poor reason for a block. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I only referred to him as a confederate, as that is what he is, and proof of such has been displayed to you. I never said anything about the two "isms" you mentioned. WP:NONAZIS is broader in scope than just nazis. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That appears to be a reference to his lineage: a descendant of Confederates. When he openly decries slavery, he's not exactly endorsing the Confederacy considering that was its aim (to keep slavery legal). 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Buffs (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Buffs: you should keep up. Have you even read his own description of himself on Twitter? —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You should keep up...that's what I'm referring to Buffs (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So then you're aware that he openly describes himself as a confederate-american. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you actually looked at his edits...or his userpage? He has repeatedly touted his "confederate heritage." Is it ok for someone to be proud of their "KKK heritage"? "Nazi heritage"? PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Or perhaps TNT can clarify with a block for misogyny too, or is that ok? Because it's very clear in the diffs by Bedford on this very thread and I quote: I stood up for the DYK process when some women couldn't handle a factoid that reminded them that men find some women attractive PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How is a subjective assessment of attractiveness "misogyny"? I think lots of people are physically unattractive for a variety of reasons. Most people do. Buffs (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Enlighten yourself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Facts are not misogyny. While I find "that after Melina stripped Torrie Wilson to win a 'bra & panties match' at The Great American Bash (2005), referee Candice Michelle stripped Melina and herself as well?" unnecessarily trivial and didn't need to be on the main page, I don't think it's ironclad evidence that Bedford's a "misogynist" in perpetuity. The fact is that The Great American Bash (2005) happened and so did the events it described. As such, it's a fact, not misogyny. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just look at his twitter feed and FB page before you keep going. I get trying to ensure this remains a place where uncomfortable ideas are tolerated, but seriously, spend 5 minutes scrolling through either and then decide if this is who you want to defend to the very end. nableezy - 19:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At this point, I'm defending no one but myself. You are conflating "defending a principle" with "defending a person". An attorney who defends a murderer is not synonymous with advocating the act of murder. I never said I agree with this person. I can (and have) defended those on BOTH sides of the political aisle for the same retribution. Buffs (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This isnt a court of law, you arent this users legal representative, and this isnt retribution. And you have to be aware that the impression one gets when you keep defending racists and misogynists and fascists that at the very least racism, misogyny, and fascism are not disqualifying attributes to be an editor in good standing here. And yes, you are defending considerably more than yourself rn. Look before you leap is all Im saying. If you still want to leap, be my guest. nableezy - 19:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm defending principles, not racism, misogyny, or fascism (where the **** do you get that in any way...I don't think you think "fascism" means what you think it means and I see zero evidence presented that he's of that ilk). Assess him based on his merits as you see fit, but I believe in people being judged (on ANY side) for what they've done, not what others think they are thinking or might do. If you think I support racism, despite the fact I reject it, I can't help you. Accusing someone of "misogyny" over something that was NSFW, but objectively true...I'm saying the facts don't line up with the accusation. Fascism? You've completely lost me. Buffs (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Many in the South view their "confederate heritage" as tied to their pride in their relative's service to their state, not what the state did or stood for. Conflating support for their service with support for their state's choices is misleading. That doesn't mean that his statements couldn't be made much more clear. His user box could easily have been modified to show the south and redone some of the phrasing to mean something much more in line with that.
    Of course, no, KKK or Nazi heritage are things that people generally shun. But Confederate heritage is not so stark. There are many nuances to that. FWIW, I had relatives fight for the Union and I have no love for the institution the Confederacy was founded to preserve (slavery) nor the subsequent racism that followed in the post-war century. I completely support the Civil Rights act and amendments that were passed to curtail this injustice. Buffs (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support of the confederacy is no different than support of someone's ancestors being Nazis who died in WW2. And Bedford has made their feelings on people of color very clear in their edits, as well as their linked social media. WP:NONAZIs isn't just about actual Nazis. We shouldn't subjugate editors to violent rhetoric for the sake of trying to appease editors who have demonstrated by their own word that they are not here to collaborate or build an encyclopedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But also, sure, everyone here should be aware that Bedford thinks we are all "mentally ill children" also, so... PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't see "support of the confederacy" in anything you've posted. I see that he's a descendant. There is a VAST difference between being a Nazi and someone who fought for Germany in WWII. One is a political party who used a country to impose their will. The other is the army that was used to do that. The two are not synonymous. Many former Nazis distanced themselves once they saw where things were going. Others were proud of the work they did while working for the Nazis (example: German scientists and Rocket Engineers), but had no love for the Nazi's beliefs. Some have conflated that pride in work and what was done to advance science as "pro-Nazi", but there are nuances that should be considered. Buffs (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The irony of someone who has not bothered to look at their history here, their userpage, their actual edits and responses in this very thread while also trying to mansplain to me what is and is not misogyny is not lost on me. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who doesn't seem to care about facts when presented with them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Any time someone ends a discussion with "you're mansplaining" (my opinion doesn't count because of my gender...the irony is flowing in here...), I think it's pretty safe to say that the argument has been "won". You haven't presented facts. You've presented nothing more than conjecture and accusations. Buffs (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And you've presented a whole lot of "some Nazis were good people, actually." You might want to just back off and drop this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I said Germans, not Nazis. If you can't make that distinction, perhaps you should let the adults talk. It sure is easy to just lump everyone together and claim moral superiority isn't it? Buffs (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You also said Confederates not Southerners... So which is it? Are you defending Nazi/Confederate heritage or German/Southern heritage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only time "Confederates" was when I said "descendant of Confederates" when explaining his lineage. "Lineage" (who was in your family) is not synonymous with "heritage" (a culture). To be 100% clear, I am not defending Nazi/Confederate heritage or the associated culture. Such advocacy should be stricken from WP. Buffs (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then strike it "Many in the South view their "confederate heritage" as tied to their pride in their relative's service to their state, not what the state did or stood for." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What exactly should I strike? What in that statement (which includes a quote) is objectively not true? What in that sentence implies that I endorse such views? Let's put it another way: consider: "Many Muslim extremists believe their troubles are caused by Jews and attack them based on these beliefs. The Nazis also felt similarly." Both sentences are true (albeit simplistic). I don't endorse such views nor do I agree with either of these factions of humanity. Simply writing a fact doesn't mean I endorse/agree with it. You're making a lot of assumptions. Buffs (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Christ, you're just going to keep digging deeper, aren't you?
    You're making a lot of assumptions
    Have you even read what you're typing? Because, holy fuck, are you making a lot of assumptions yourself. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now that just sounds like just following orders. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed, he appears to be invoking the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not at all. Many aircraft, mechanical, and aerospace personnel had nothing to do with the Holocaust and did not support it when they found out about it. The US openly admitted German people (including scientists and soldiers/airmen/sailors) after WWII if they openly renounced Nazism; most never accepted it in the first place.
    I think most people in the US support our troops/veterans (polls show they are among the 5 most trusted professions). When our soldiers were sent to Gulf War/Etc, they recognized the soldiers were sent without regard for their personal wishes. Regardless of whether we supported the President at the time, we supported the troops and recognized that they served their country and its ideals, not necessarily the leader or political party in power. The same was true of the German Army/Air Force/Navy. In fact, many of them served leadership roles in the post-war era leading to the overwhelming rejection of said Nazism in Germany. Buffs (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC
    Oh boy, that is a HUGE gloss over of the de-Nazification of the German state post WWII, and ignores a huge part as to why former Wehrmacht leaders were allowed to lead the new West German Army. It wasn't just "Oh, they disliked the nazis but participated, they're okay". FrederalBacon (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, thats the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, its a myth. See also Paragraph 175#Development in West Germany and [36]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be entirely fair, the main reason that myth exists is the reason Buffs believes it. "They let them serve after, they had to be good" is the exact opposite. It's more "They knew the Wehrmacht wasn't clean, and propagated the myth to soften the blow of having former Nazis lead West German army during Cold War". FrederalBacon (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I never said the Wehrmacht was "clean" in any way. I'm saying that it wasn't 100% evil either. I'm not saying "they disliked the nazis but participated, they're okay". I'm saying that merely being in the military doesn't mean you automatically support everything your government espouses. By that perverted logic the Union soldiers supported slavery as the Union had four slave states during the war and permitted slavery during the Civil War.
    The implication that I support criminal prosecution of homosexuals or the persecution of Gypsies/Roma is abhorrent and suggest that you strike that remark. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think that was the implication there, I think the intention was to show that not everything of Nazi Germany was gone after 1945, however, while Paragraph 175 was terrible, it's not like the persecution of homosexuality was geographically limited to Germany. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I never stated nor implied "everything of Nazi Germany was gone after 1945". It took decades to get to the point we are at today. I'm well aware, first hand. We faced the same sorts of issues in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc (previous administrators kept in place despite the prior record). I'm only stating that members of the military (or even government) don't necessarily support whoever is in charge. To level the charge at anyone that they support their leaders/actions just because they were in government is just as ignorant as saying that, when power changes hands, they suddenly are all 100% ok. Buffs (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That wasn't the implication... The implication is that you need to re-consider your dated historical views or in fact learn about topics you previously knew nothing about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The implication that I "know nothing about" these is absurd. You're concluding things I never stated. Buffs (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You stated them clearly, you said "In fact, many of them served leadership roles in the post-war era leading to the overwhelming rejection of said Nazism in Germany." which either means you're completely ignorant of history, a Nazi apologist, or both. So which is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In complete context, I was clearly stating that those that rejected Nazism were among those that served leadership roles in the post-war era led to the overwhelming and eventual rejection of said Nazism in Germany. The fact that you somehow read that as being a Nazi apologist is truly baffling. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "those that rejected Nazism were among those that served leadership roles in the post-war era led to the overwhelming and eventual rejection of said Nazism in Germany" is just as false, I suggest you read the linked Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, Paragraph 175#Development in West Germany, and the documentary which discusses this in detail. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What about that statement is false? Are you saying those put in power by the occupying forces post-WWII were ALL Nazis?[citation needed]
    While it's definitely true that, for example "90 of the 170 leading lawyers and judges in the then-West German Justice Ministry had been members of the Nazi Party" from 1949 to 1973, it's equally true that 80 were not (simple math). Those are the people I'm referring to, not the former Nazi-party members. They were the ones who helped drive policies and laws to become extremely anti-Nazi over the following decades. Buffs (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. If anyone doubts what an utterly repulsive individual we're talking about, see this Facebook post. (His Facebook account is linked from his user page, so this is not outing). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, and I've reversed my !vote above. Show this racist slime the door. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How is that comment "racist"? Is it because of the minorities that he shot? Buffs (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think you can work it out, taken in line with his other comments (including denying Confederate racism). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think you can spell it out. You're intentionally being vague and crucifying someone over it Buffs (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The totality of what I've seen screams racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic bigot to me, and my comments are aimed at whoever closes this - I'm not trying to convince those who support him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then, to the closing party, I would contend that this is guilt by accusation and without evidence and bid you adieu. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not to mention his blatant contempt for trans people. There are a dozen examples I could place here of why this is a good block, but I know that the ardent supporters will never be convinced so there's not much point in spreading his hate speech any further. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That one's quite ironic really, coming from such a physically repulsive man. Just as well he's happy being a bachelor, really. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (Oh, and yeah, I know all about WP:NPA and all that, but C Bedford Crenshaw is the kind of person WP:IAR is made for. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    Boing, I would kindly ask you strike that. WP:IAR exists, but so does WP:CIVIL. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, OK then, seeing as you ask so nicely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry for reverting Andrevan, but I think this is now formally a community ban thread and as such needs to remain open. nableezy - 19:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sigh. Alright. Andre🚐 19:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It became a formal CBAN thread when TAOT made the recommendation to indef him. I'm not sure why there is an idea that this is NOT a CBAN thread, someone proposed a sanction, we are discussing it, it has been a CBAN thread since TAOT proposed a block. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:NOTBURO, he's now blocked so thread is moot, that's why I tried to close the thread. However, I will respect those who wish to continue discussing it as a CBAN on top of the existing indefblock. Andre🚐 19:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The issue is the block. The reason there is the rush to close is because a block has been placed, so this feels moot, but it's not, the discussion was not done when the admin imposed the block, so the discussion regarding the CBAN should continue. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A block is not a ban, and currently any single admin may unblock this user if they feel an unblock request merits it. A formal CBAN would require a consensus to overturn. nableezy - 19:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand that, and that is my entire point as to why this conversation needs to continue. At this point, the editor could appeal his block and get it removed...but not if consensus is he is banned. The administrator applied a block, thus leading to the overwhelming feeling this should be closed due to mootness, but it ISN'T moot. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, was trying to reply to Andre. nableezy - 20:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand. That's fine. Andre🚐 20:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mean, I wanted him indeffed. I didn't really care if it was a community ban or an admin saw his activity and decided to indef. The result is the same. He's completely incompatible with Wikipedia and I hope the door hits him on the way out. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand you just wanted him indeffed, but the way it was done, including the fact that it immediately became a discussion and vote, to me means it is a formal CBAN discussion, even if it doesn't use a "proper" format, or wasn't intended to be one. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's... not how it works. If it were, there'd be a hell of a lot more CBANs in effect right now. People can stop by and support an indef without making it a formal community ban, they're just saying "yeah, this person probably shouldn't be here." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So...the giving input that an editor shouldn't be here, due to their conduct...and recommending them be indef blocked. How is that different than a CBAN discussion? Because it's not titled as such? FrederalBacon (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Essentially yes. We want to be explicitly clear when making a community ban. I've previously seen discussions with lots of users piping in to support a ban on user, but the moment someone claims it's a CBAN folks turn around and deny that it's what they're supporting. Folks can support a simple ban that can be appealed to an administrator, without supporting a full community ban. A CBAN discussion needs to be clear from the outset, or made its own subsection, so there's no confusion or misunderstanding. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it's lovely time for someone to formally close this shitshow Iamreallygoodatcheckers[email protected] 19:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Before someone closes this ... I have some cred to burn by disagreeing with this block. It was bad enough to nominate someone's political userboxes in one of which they explicitly disavowed racism and in another of which (as Floquenbeam has shown) an extremist emblem was substituted for "GOP" by another editor, presumably without their knowledge. Now they have been indeffed on the basis of their response plus the userboxes, and people are trawling through their social media. Granted, we apparently aren't losing much in the way of article contributions, if you want to be utilitarian. But if they were displaying their politics and thus intimidating other members of the community other than in userboxes (since their statements in the long-ago thread that led to their desysopping; long ago that it was a deus ex Jimbone desysop), I missed it while I slept. They got poked, and I don't see that they were doing harm except by the userboxes. And we still permit political and religious self-expression in userboxes. Going after individual users one by one because someone notices a political/religious userbox with which they disagree amounts to a honeypot, it distracts from our encyclopedic mission, it erodes community trust, it's fundamentally unfair, and of course it's going to provoke uncivil responses from some of those users. It's bear-poking. Fair would be to ban all of the political and religious userboxes. They fail the criterion established after the userbox wars (which were before my time, I note; no, I am not a sock of a Great Old One), namely, not to be divisive. I'm saddened bordering on disgusted, especially since community discussion included several people opposing a block. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Fair would be to ban all of the political and religious userboxes." — strongly agree, and would support your RfC should you go for it — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I meant to post here too, not just at Bedford's talk page, but I got distracted. Since Yngvadottir mentioned me, though... The short version of my message on Bedford's talk page was that any criticism of Bedford based on the VRWC userbox featuring a fascism logo was unfair, as another editor substituted that logo for a harmless "GOP logo" without Bedford's knowledge. To the extent this might have been what TNT meant by "NONAZIS", I thought it only fair to mention. But as has adequately been demonstrated by others, and as I recall back when he was desysopped, there is a ton of other evidence that Bedford is a thoroughly icky person, so I choose not to spend any of my time arguing against a block that might have partially been based on a misunderstanding of the circumstances around that userbox, when there is so much other evidence that wasn't even mentioned in the block log that we're best off without him. I still think a community ban discussion is silly, as no admin is going to reverse this block unless Bedford says things that he will obviously never say. But from recent experience, if people really, really want to argue the toss, trying to do them a favor and save them time by getting them to not argue the toss won't work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not just about the userboxes. He was also a massive jerk to multiple editors for no reason, and his social media was openly linked on his userpage, so you're totally wrong to imply that people went out and looked for his social media. He's been uncivil for over a decade. Don't turn this into an opportunity for you to soapbox about how we are the thought police. This was an excellent block of a thoroughly reprehensible user. If we block everyone who openly displays fascist symbols on their userpage (see great right wing conspiracy userbox with the symbol used by the British Union of Fascists), I would be thrilled. I will not share Wikipedia with fascists. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If we block everyone who openly displays fascist symbols on their userpage (see great right wing conspiracy userbox with the symbol used by the British Union of Fascists). sigh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sigh all you want. When I posted my comment, yours was not visible. At risk of sounding like a troll in saying this, AGF. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If we block everyone who openly displays fascist symbols on their userpage (see great right wing conspiracy userbox with the symbol used by the British Union of Fascists) - Did you even read Floquenbeam or Yngvadottir's posts? It was changed, just a couple of months ago, when the editor probably wasn't even aware. I'm willing to give a pass on that UBX, given the fact that a different editor put that symbol on there. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The rest of my comment still stands. Bedford should have been blocked years ago, even ignoring that particular userbox. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You don't find any disagreement with me on that. While I argued the block was premature given the CBAN discussion, a block was inevitable, clearly incompatible with project goals. And as you've retracted "I will not share Wikipedia with fascists", a statement I was going to take issue with (you can't just block everyone you believe is fascist), I think you and I are both on the same page. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I said, I have (had) some cred to burn (apparently I am on the verge of soapbox[ing] about how we are the thought police. AGF, as they say). Per Floq, there is a ton of other evidence that Bedford is a thoroughly icky person; per Trainsandotherthings, He was also a massive jerk to multiple editors for no reason. I trust TNT blocked him for recent on-wiki evidence of this ickiness and jerkitude. I am not suggesting anyone violated WP:OUTING. But what matters is whether someone plays nicely with others here on-wiki, how they respond to someone reporting their userboxes at AN/I and someone else nominating them for deletion isn't in and of itself a good indicator of that, and the fact an editor has a Facebook/Twitter/Goodreads/body of writings on Medium/personal website and mentions it on their userpage doesn't make their writings there germane to judging their behavior on-wiki. There's at least one slippery slope here, and applying political litmus tests is both disrespectful of fellow editors and destructive of our goal of having a diverse community of editors working together to improve the encyclopedia. Icky and a jerk is one thing. I hope he was blocked not for that, but for behaving on-wiki in such a way as to have a chilling effect on fellow editors. (And if that chilling effect was just the userboxes, deleting them would have been sufficient.) Because conflating "This person has politically intolerant views" with "This person is intolerant of their fellow editors" is bad, not the least because it will eventually result in a severely limited pool of editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I personally agree with all of that, but I also cant say that an editor who says I rarely use Wikipedia anyway anymore, after I got robbed of my admin status. If I get banned I will take it as a badge of honor. IT is further proof that no one should take WP seriously, especially considering the Recession debacle. is not saying very bluntly that they are NOTHERE. And that is sufficient to block. nableezy - 00:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wait, you're advocating banning people based on criticism of Wikipedia? Buffs (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your comment doesnt seem to relate to mine in any way, but no, it is the blunt I lost my admin ball so now I dont want to have anything to do with this place and Im proud of getting banned. Ive found your input to be less than useful, as per usual tbh, and I dont think I have anything else to add to this discussion, so feel free to get in one more reply if youd like. nableezy - 01:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Yngvadottir, would you mind expanding on conflating "This person has politically intolerant views" with "This person is intolerant of their fellow editors" is bad? Enterprisey (talk!) 01:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The following may seem like starry-eyed hippy-dippy "let's all sing kumbaya", but this is a community with the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. What we should care about here is how someone acts on-wiki. If they respect fellow editors of all stripes (and endeavor to maintain NPOV in articles and discussions about encyclopedic coverage), that they are personally an X or an anti-Y is just part of our diversity. We shouldn't chase someone away because some of us or even most of us dislike their politics, religion, or morality; the reason to show someone the door is when they disrespect fellow editors on-wiki. (Tthe references in this discussion to this editor's reaction on Facebook to being blocked strike me as regrettable.) The easiest and fairest way to minimize people being shocked by others' beliefs and values is of course to enforce the ban on userboxes that state political and religious positions. We've had this issue arise in the past with atheist user boxes that mock religious belief; again, that's going to shock and repel some other users, but what matters is whether the editor edits courteously. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Clarify. You mean, if I had a userbox that read "I'm an atheist". It would get deleted? GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let’s not slippery slope this, the only point here is Bedford is WAY over the line on his general behavior. The userboxes turned out to just be the tip of the iceberg. Dronebogus (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete userboxes that fail MfDs or blank his userpage. But don't block/ban him, unless he restores the userboxes. Remember, we might be setting a precedent here, on how this kinda situation is handled. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Reading this, I have gone the full range from thinking that you can't indef someone for 7 year old diffs and endorsing a strong warning only, to seeing the merit of TNT's bold block, to now feeling like I essentially endorse an indef/cban after I see how much discussion and ridiculous stuff is being posted coming close to defending the neo-confederate position. Yeah, we should outright block Nazis, no we aren't blocking people for thoughtcrime, but when users started deleting the userboxes, the blocked editor could have had a reasonable response, rather than an immature response digging in. Based on this discussion I just removed a bunch of my own lefty politics userboxes. Not because I no longer feel they should be permitted, but because I'm realizing how many wasted hours have already been burned on ad hominems and insane arguments. I don't endorse doxxing or trawling through social media. I do think this thread is giving fuel to the fire for people who hate Wikipedia and think it's a lefty-liberal bastion, though of course it is NOT, but we really shouldn't be litigating actual content fringe views in this thread, people! In conclusion, just for the time wasting alone and the incivility, the block is endorseable. Andre🚐 21:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Andrevan: I have given up on the idea that certain people are ever going to see Wikipedia as anything but left-leaning (which is categorically untrue) after the Talk:Recession drama. The people who believe that seem content to just make things up at this point, so why should we care what they actually think? They'll never be convinced, so we should just ignore them. –MJLTalk 04:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't argue with you. Andre🚐 04:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It’s not doxxing if it’s public info Dronebogus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"we might be setting a precedent here" — one can only hope, but WP:NONAZIS is fairly good already, good idea though! Face-smile.svgTheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CBAN/block endorse voting/discussion[edit]

  • Endorse block decision, Support indef CBAN. Bedford is incredibly rude and has a laundry list of fundamentally unacceptable beliefs clearly proven here, including Neo-Confederate sympathies, sexism, ableism, anti-vax, transphobia, and probable homophobia. This is different from my vote on blocking in the first place (I’m voting that the admin made the right call and a CBAN), so I’m not vote stacking. Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse block & support CBAN. Yes Bedford is fairly inactive but not quite inactive enough for this to be moot. And ultimately while the notification may have alerted them, it was their choice whether to comment in response. My reasoning is a little different from many FWICT. For me, what it comes down to is I don't think an editor who says they were gangraped [37], [38] (some minor corrections later [39]), [40], [41] when the only thing that happened was discussion followed by Jimbo Wales de-sysoping, should be allowed to edit here. No editor should have to put up with that since effectively Bedford is saying these unnamed but known editors gangraped them which for many reasons is not acceptable hyperbole. For that matter, an editor who refers to their fellow editors as feminazis [42] is also IMO not compatible with editing here. And while it may have only been a single incident on-wiki when combined with their saying perhaps female editors objected because they were jealous over attractive women [43], frankly if this happened now. those two would be enough for me to support an indef until the editor demonstrated they understood how fucking offensive their comments were. While it may have been a long time since they made those comments with the most recent one being over 9 year old, their most recent comments including on this very ANI show they views haven't fundamentally changed, they still don't understand how offensive what they said was. At most maybe they recognise the need to avoid saying it on-wiki. That isn't enough for me when you were willing to say it in the past, especially when the editor hardly ever does anything here. To be clear, I'm not saying an editor has to agree with the concerns about the DYK. It's possible to respectfully disagree i.e. without saying you were gangraped or calling your fellow editors feminazis. I'm aware the gangrape thing was discussed a fair amount at the time and nothing happened. Indeed after a bunch of edit warring and discussion it was allowed to stand until Bedford removed it when changing their user page [44] [45]. That was IMO a very wrong decision which I'm embarrassed to admit I effectively was part of. (I don't think I ever commented but I'm fairly sure I heard about this at the time, it's why I recalled it and I'm fairly sure I didn't fight for a stronger decision.) I still think it's fine we correct this decision now when it's clear while they may have stopped using such offensive language, they clearly don't recognise how wrong what they said is. I'd note this cannot be simply put down to blowing off steam in the aftermath, as shown by the diffs the were still saying the same gangrape shit onwiki in 2013, nearly 5 years afterwards. On that point, for clarity I only refer to what they have said on-wiki. I only looked at a single off-wiki thing which was their comments about transwomen and that was an accident and I'd already formed an opinion by then. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I think I may have looked at some of the off-wiki stuff in 2008 although I don't recall what I saw.) I don't feel it's helpful to get into the issue of whether off-wiki comments should prevent someone from editing here when the on-wiki comments are IMO sufficient disqualification. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse block, support CBAN. The evidence is clear that Bedord is -- as someone said above -- "a thoroughly icky person". His use of disturbing and insulting userboxes, his racist post on Facebook, his comments on trans people, are all very obvious indications that he is not the sort of person who can contribute here in a balanced and NPOV manner. Although Dennix Brown is an admin I have great respect for, he is wrong in categorizing this as "thoughtcrime", because -- like censorship -- thoughtcrime can only be defined in terms of the society as a whole, not in connection with a privately-owned and -operated website. Bedord is welcome to contribute to Conservapedia, or Racistopedia, or Confederapedia if he so wishes, but here we have -- or should have -- a much higher standard, and Bedford has shown his personal disdain for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse block, support CBAN. Support for Confederacy, open transphobia and homophobia, misogyny and all this shit about America "held hostage"... This guy clearly has been collecting every alt-right bullshit he came across. Per WP:NONAZIS, we don't need his type. But, for sure, he'll be top shot editor on Conservapedia, they'll accept him with open arms raised right hands. And, as farewell gift, I'll give him imaginary brown shirt from my drawer. Arado Ar 196 (CT) 06:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    metapedia would be more his speed if he is a nazi sympathizer, conservapedia is probably closer to his actual beliefs Dronebogus (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse block, support CBAN. Just to be known – I already voted to indef Bedford, this vote is meant to support the action of TheresNoTime and a CBAN. As a community, we definitely don't need someone who displays open support for the Confederacy, transphobia, homophobia, misogyny and various conspiracy theories (not to mention the additude towards other editors). There should be no place on Wikipedia for people with such views, regardless of their past merits. —Sundostund (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I think we are engaging in the Wikipedia equivalent of sending Al Capone to prison for tax evasion. It's hard to argue that Bedford did enough in the very near-term that would rise to the level of an indef block and a CBAN. We are essentially banning him for all of his prior unprosecuted misdeeds - something we should have done years ago but failed to. Say what you will about how much this block-and-ban makes us feel good; Wikipedia policy (I emphasize policy and not essays) does not provide for this.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You’re talking about sending Capone to prison like it’s a bad thing. Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Capone metaphor was a bit extreme, but what I'm pointing out that we are not blocking and banning for active, continued and ongoing disruption to the Wikipedia. The nature of this block is nearly entirely cathartic, and the precedence established by that is what concerns me. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you. That is my point as well. Buffs (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We have banned people for having neo-Nazi, racist, or homophobic/transphobic beliefs before. So it's not so much precedent as established behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Those people usually out themselves within the first few days of being on Wikipedia, usually by diving straight into a contentious subject area like AmPol; making questionable edits sourced to phony/unreliable sources; and getting into ideological/battleground arguments with other users. Their reprehensible beliefs tend to be window-dressing for behavior incompatible with Wikipedia policy, and so they usually end up being banned because of improper edits, rather than for their beliefs. In comparison, Bedford was provoked into responding by someone trawling through his userspace, and then banned after his on-wiki and off-wiki response. This isn't really how we do things. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't understand why people keep talking as if someone was looking through Bedford's userspace as if looking for stuff to find offensive. No evidence has been presented of this which IMO makes it close to a personal attack. The most likely thing that happened is someone saw Bedford somewhere and happened to check out their user page. Maybe they were headed to the talk page, maybe they were just interested. When I visit someone user space I am not looking for something to find offensive. I'm just looking. If I do happen to see something to cause concern (which hasn't ever really happened to me) I may raise the issue probably directly with the editor which is reasonable. If I don't get a satisfactory response and I feel the issue is serious enough I may take it someone appropriate. In this case, since the editor hadn't edited in ages I can understand why an editor might skip that step. Userpages are supposed to be for editors to say something about themselves or their editing that other editors may find be interested in. Unlike subpages, they aren't intended to be hidden or something only the editor ever sees. Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I really don't think it's reasonable, no matter how long someone has been gone for, to go straight to WP:ANI for objectionable userpage content without any intermediate steps or without supporting diffs indicating that attempts at mediation have failed. ANI is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. (bolded mine) I think a behavioral problem ceases to be chronic if there is a long span of inactivity. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With all due respect, IMHO it was WAY better to send Al Capone to prison only for tax evasion, than to allow him to roam around freely, live in his "hard earned" wealth and immerse himself in his "business" ventures. Sometimes, doing something is better than doing nothing. Also, mistakes and failures of the past can be (and should be) corrected, and that is how I see this indef block and a CBAN. —Sundostund (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WaltCip: blocks are intended to be preventative not punitive. From their replies, it's clear this is someone who continues to think it's okay to say they were gangraped over those disputes and de-sysop. The fact they weren't blocked over it is very unfortunate, but until Bedford understands how fucking offensive that comparison is, I don't see they should be welcome here and especially if they aren't here to actual do anything else productive. If they hadn't said anything, maybe we could just hope they've learnt, but they decided to speak up and demonstrate they don't understand. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FYI I've self-requested review of my block at WP:AARV — for what it's worth, I'd appreciate any comments y'all make there to remain strictly on the topic of my admin actions (i.e. best to continue the "back and forth" here, if you're so inclined) — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, it's a tad discomforting to know that editors are monitoring the userpages of other editors. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And why's that GoodDay? User pages don't belong to the user, and patrolling user space edits finds a lot of promotional spam (among other less savoury things) — surely you're not discomforted to know that such pages are monitored and deleted? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 15:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suppose you, Dronebogus or anyone else had userboxes & someone took offense to any of them? It would be quite upsetting, to the editor who's userboxes are MfD. I'm more concerned with whether an editor is pushing their PoV on Wikipedia pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User pages are commonly viewed by other editors. Within reason, they should not include objectionable content. I'd say announcing that you're proud of your confederate heritage falls inside that. Wouldn't you agree? —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't share Bedford's views on the Confederacy. If he isn't pushing his views on that topic, onto mainspace or in discussions? Then don't bother with him. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse/CBAN This may be the first time I've ever disagreed with Yngvadottir, but I simply don't see that we're losing anything here. What are the positives of leaving Bedford unblocked? Nothing, and they've proved that themselves. What are the negatives? Well, just read up this page. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support block, endorse CBAN. I already supported a block above, this comment serves as confirmation that I also support a CBAN. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse/CBAN. All else aside, they're clearly and persistently uncivil, with no indication that they're going to improve. This is a collaborative project, which depends on working with others; editors have the right to their private beliefs but not the right to express those beliefs on-wiki in a way that insults other editors. And when people point out that their userboxes are insulting, Bedford has constantly responded in an insulting and belittling manner. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose block - While I can't sympathize with many of Bedford's personal views on various topics (as communicated by hundreds of userboxes on his user page), I can't see any policy-based rationale for this block. Bedford had some objectionable and inappropriate userboxes on his user page. Ok, the solution is to remove the userboxes and nominate them for deletion, not jump straight to an indef block. Bedford also made some mildly uncivil remarks in a recent MfD, referring to another editor as "childish" and "ignorant". This type of language, while discouraged, is hardly worthy of an indefinite block. If we handed out indef blocks to everyone who made comments on this level, we wouldn't have any editors left. Hell, I would've been indef blocked 15 years ago if that were the standard operating procedure here. It's not. Therefore, I have to believe that this user was blocked because he made a userbox that implies that he disapproved of President Obama and later changed it to imply his support for the January 6th insurrection. Sure, some of these views are reprehensible in my opinion, but I don't think there is a policy basis to block someone for expressing unpopular views (assuming those views don't rise to the level of overt racism, discrimination, hate speech, etc. - and disapproving of Obama is not inherently racist). Some people are reaching back in Bedford's editing history, pointing to edits from 10 years ago as justification for a block. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. Again, if someone has an objectionable userbox, remove it from the page, nominate it for deletion, give the user a warning, and move on. If the user restores the userbox despite the warning, then we can think about blocking them. This block was premature and not policy-based. As much as I disagree with just about all of Bedford's personal views, I don't think WP will benefit by blocking all users that fail to conform to a certain limited range of political beliefs. There are already enough accusations of WP becoming a liberal echo chamber, we don't need to add fuel to the fire by blocking a harmless editor that makes 3 edits every 5 years. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose block per WaltCip and Scottywong. While I find Bedford repugnant, I frankly don't see a policy-based reason to block him. Will I mourn for Bedford if he gets banned? Certainly not. But do I think the OP should have found something better to do instead of stirring up controversy with an inactive editor? Absolutely. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse/CBAN Much of my thoughts have already been surmised by others, particularly Sundostund, Dronebogus and Praxidicae. In coming to this opinion, I've read through this discussion, the current discussion on Bedford's talk page, all three of the userbox MfDs, the 2008 ANI thread that lead to Bedford's desysop, and recent posts on Bedford's Twitter and Facebook (both are linked on his userpage). In doing so I've seen many uncivil comments, displays of sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE says that blocks should be used for three things 1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; 2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and 3. encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. While this obviously fails #1, because Bedford has been mostly inactive since late 2013, I believe it meets #2. Bedford's on wiki behaviour has not changed in the 14 years since Jimbo desysopped him, and his recent off-wiki reactions to the block by TheresNoTime show absolutely no sign of self reflection or acceptance that his behavour is the problem here, as he continues to lash out and blame others for the consequences of his choices and actions. As such I believe this block meets criteria #2 of BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, because it will inherently deter the continuation of present, disruptive behaviour that, based on his history, is likely to repeat and persist in perpituity. The best time to indef or CBAN Bedford was when he was last active, the second best time to indef or CBAN him is now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support CBAN - The editor has been lurking for more than a decade, prepared to cause disruption when the opportunity was right, as is indicated by replying quickly at MFD and changing the date in the userbox. An ongoing risk to the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose block – Completely frivolous and moralistic block. As for potential disruption to WP, the user is not active, so there's our answer. I also concur with what's been said above wrt echo chamber, thoughtcrime, etc. Nutez (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose block. For disclosure I voted above (pre-block) opposing it, and now I'm voting to undo the block. This was a bad block. It was made arbitrarily at a point in the discussion when there was clearly no consensus for a block. Instead the admin in question took it upon themselves to ignore the discussion and do it anyway. I agree with Nutez, Scottywong, and others that Bedford was not disrupting the project and this was clearly motivated by his silly userboxes that could have simply been deleted. The idea that him removing a newsletter from his talk page is homophobic is also laughable. Undo the block and only reinstate it if he actually disrupts the project. — Czello 08:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose block. Ah, we're still talking; I came here to read the close. Sorry, Black Kite and others, and thanks for the offer of an alternate venue, TNT, but similarly to ScottyWong, I don't see this as a policy-compliant block. I hadn't read Bedford's response here when I typed my above statements; I now have, and have looked at his talk page responses too, and while he is providing yet another example of the axiom that those who call fellow editors immature—in this case, childish—have some learning about adult styles of discourse to do themselves, he presented no threat to the encyclopedia, imminent or otherwise. He made only one response here (to my surprise), and I disagree with some of the characterizations of its level of rudeness. Calling him NOTHERE based on his churlish reactions to being attacked (which is what it amounts to, including insistence that he could not mean what he said in one userbox) was an overreaction, and adding a NONAZIS rationale based on an emblem someone else had slipped into a userbox that other editors were transcluding onto their userpages was unjust. In my opinion. Sorry again, folks; justice matters, tolerance should not be only for viewpoints we agree with, diversity includes everyone, be better than them, a big tent gives us a better encyclopedia, etc., your bromide here. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Diversity doesn’t include people who openly express hate for anyone who isn’t like them, which extends far beyond the stupid nazi box here Dronebogus (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    tolerance should not be only for viewpoints we agree with, diversity includes everyone - Yes, racists, nazis, everyone. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I do hope you’re being sarcastic Dronebogus (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 1 week block for his uncivil comments and pa. I think those who support indef focus too much on his previous conduct and those who oppose block overlook his recent personal attacks. I think one week block would be a balanced approach.--Madame Necker (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose block - this would set a dangerous precedent --FMSky (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The precedent being that racists and neoconfederates aren't welcome here? Because that is exactly the point. Wikipedia gains nothing and loses a lot by keeping this user around. --RockstoneSend me a message! 13:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      What do you mean by keeping this user around? He barely edits, and this whole kerfuffle is quite likely to provoke him into making a come-back to "trigger the libs" or smth. No need to give him and his ilk more hate fuel. Please ignore and move on. Nutez (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      All the more reason to ban him Dronebogus (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This community doesn't need people who express support for the Confederacy, as well as racism, homophobia, transphobia, mysogyny, etc. Should someone who displays things like this, this, this and this on their social networks accounts (which they themselves linked from their user page here) be a member of this project? Someone who sees their fellow users as "mentally ill children"? They should be let to enjoy their "badge of honor" (as they called their indef block), far away from this project and regardless of their past merits. —Sundostund (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Goodness, is this where we're at? Scouring their social media to find objectionable content? — Czello 19:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, he’s literally got it linked on his shrine to his ego userpage for all to see. One click and you’re exposed to this trash. Dronebogus (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is the option of ignoring his userpage, though. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You keep saying that, and yet userpages are kind of… meant to be seen. Dronebogus (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See something you don't like? figuratively walk on by. What if an editor was or editors were to complain about any of your userboxes? These things have the potential to backfire, down the road. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    “Don’t like don’t read” doesn’t fly on WP; we have this thing called Wikipedia:UBCR Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also, I have had userboxes sent to MfD in the past (albeit for more innocuous reasons) and I like to think I handled it a bit more maturely than Bedford here. Dronebogus (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Link Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dronebogus/Userboxes/CBT Dronebogus (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In the past, I've come across some userboxes that one 'could' consider offensive, but I chose to not bother with it. It was their userpage, not mine. Anyways, I guess will just have to agree, that we approach these situations differently. GoodDay (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are the supports for a ban, mostly due to Bedford's off-Wikipedia views? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mine is mostly based on the yes very old but not that far back in his edit history editing of placing "the War of Northern Aggression" in Wikipedia's voice for the American Civil War and the general contempt for the community expressed in his parting message. nableezy - 16:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose block this is entirely over-the-top and pointless waste of time precipitated by nothing other than political dislike. The editor hasn't been editing, and their only recent actions were grumbling—hardly the stuff we block over. There was no policy-based reason for the block, let alone trying for a ban out-of-process. It could have been ignored like any reasonable adult should, and the encyclopedia would be no worse off. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree, oppose Gross overreaction. We frequently encounter prejudiced editors, and handle them proportionately to the harm they’re causing. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed! I oppose on the same grounds. Buffs (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Ban & CBAN - Let's not split hairs here: we cannot tolerate users who support racist, sexist or homophobic belief systems here & still call this an encyclopedia which is friendly to others. Certain belief systems are simply incompatible with that goal, and are not simple "opinions" which one may agree or disagree ove. Bedford has made it very clear that not only have they no interest in actually contributing to the encyclopedia anymore, they support bigoted beliefs, hold the entire community in contempt, and are proud of being abrasive & offensive. Further, the argument that we cannot consider off-wiki behavior is foolhardy. It is simply more evidence that his views are incompatible with this project, and he will not be able to work with others appropriately. This is not "political dislike," this is protecting project members from someone who has espoused agreement with racist ideology. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, looking at the history on this noticeboard, we do not promptly kick off racists. My impression is that we’re Western-Europe/north-American centric, in that we respond more vigorously to issues in that region than others. For example, here’s an anti-Armenian genocide denier Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#Ethno-nationalist editing by user:Aloisnebegn. Received a 31-hour block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is worth pointing out that when Bedford was de-mopped by Jimbo in 2008, off-wiki content (a Myspace blog post) was given as the primary reason behind the action, and ArbCom has affirmed that they can take note of off-wiki behavior for settling on-wiki disputes. I understand the idea of not using social media against someone, because social media isn't always representative of someone as a person. But there is precedent for having used off-wiki content before, including for a decision regarding this very editor. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So...indef for something 15 years ago? That seems to be a stretch. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)