Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:45, 27 February 2021

This is Girth Summit's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is Girth Summit's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

I need help! Vandalism on my talk page!

Hi, Girth Summit! Please revert IP User 120.22.160.252's edit on my talk page. I cannot undo it anymore because of how much bytes it has added. Help me please! Thanks! A21NX (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, you may also block it for disruptive editing. Your soonest response and action will be highly appreciated. Thank you. A21NX (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A21NX, the IP address is already blocked, they were vandalising quite widely. I reverted their additions to your talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Girth Summit! I hope no one will vandalize my talk page next time nor my user page. I hate vandals. A21NX (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A21NX, I recommend taking a look at WP:RBI and WP:DENY. Trolls and vandals are often just looking to get attention - the more you react, the happier they are. Their aim isn't to permanently vandalise your talk page (they know they can't do that), they just want to get a reaction from you. My advice, if it happens again, is just to report them, revert the vandalism, and then forget about them - they're not worth getting upset about. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For dealing with a particularly tedious wave of vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

On that shivaji maharaj wiki

Shivaji Wiki Can't we replace Indian Ruler in the first para with "Kshatriya Ruler" his biography also mentions that he was a shuddha kshatriya and hid ancestor was from kshatriya sisodiya Rajputs Kanishk1zero1 (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kanishk1zero1, it wasn't me who reverted your change at Shivaji. You should discuss changes to the article at the article's talk page, where other interested editors will see the conversation and express their views. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

125.26.13.50

Can user:125.26.13.50 please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent, already done by the looks of things! GirthSummit _(blether) 13:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Jame Dreyfus

Hello.

I don't believe we have interacted before, but I am aware that you have been willing to intervene on some of Wikipiedia's more contentious pages.

There is an issue at James Dreyfus. Dreyfus became involved in a protracted Twitter spat, which seemingly ended with him saying he doesn't use pronouns ], which multiple IP users (possibly all the same person) are taking to mean that he does not use them in reference to himself. In reality, this sentence could mean one of several things, however, the point is, it is not relevant to a Misplaced Pages article. A Twitter tantrum doesn't warrant as sufficient for inclusion in a WP:BLP.

Attempts to make reference to the episode in the article text appear to have ceased, and attempts to WP:LABEL Dreyfus have also been reverted. However, IP's continue to reinstate edits removing male pronouns. My reverts are skirting on edit-warring, so I do not wish to continue to do so. One registered editor left me a message, to which I replied and advised starting a discussion on the article Talk Page. A different registered editor then did so, in an unsigned comment, to which I also replied.

I do not feel that there is any justification for removing male pronouns from the article, and furthermore, believe attempts to do so are merely being done for spurious 'point-scoring' motives. The latter is supported by the fact that numerous Twitter users are encouraging and joking about this, including one who specifically stated they were aware their behaviour might earn them a ban, and who made a point of naming my account, in what I can only presume was an attempt to provoke harassment against me. ]. I have requested edit protection, which I believe I have done correctly (I have never done such before). I was hoping you might take a look, and provide temporary protection from IP editors.

Many thanks, and apologies for the rambling nature of my request. Regards. AutumnKing (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Autumnking2012, in this instance the page is clearly being disrupted, and I've applied protection for a week. In general terms though, I'd say that the last thing I want is a reputation for being an admin willing to intervene in contentious pages - your report to RfPP was fine, it would have been acted upon, it's just that the page looks like it's backlogged at the moment.

cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies if it was inappropriate to make the request here. I have never tried to protect a page previously, and was unsure how effective the process was. I think the fact that my user name was being thrown around on Twitter (there were subsequent instances to the Tweet I referenced) felt a bit disconcerting. I have tried to remove myself from these discussions in the past, when they get too heated. I appreciate that there are topics here which descend too quickly into personal bias. I wanted to make sure I wasn't spiralling into violating the 3RR rules, and I happened to recall that you have previously intervened in discussions I had been following, in a calm and measured manner. Many thanks for your assistance on this occasion, and apologies again. Regards. AutumnKing (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologise, I'm just letting you know that you did the right thing with the RfPP request. In future, if you're worried about getting drawn into an edit war, you can always consider posting a note at WP:BLPN asking for more eyes on it. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - February 2021

The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter Issue 154 - February 2021 January issue Got any suggestions? — Add them here Project News Welcome to the one hundred and fifty fourth WikiProject Yorkshire monthly newsletter. Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 16,434 last month to 16,522 on 29 January 2021). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 190 is ahead of WP:GM who have 88. WP:YORKS also has the lead in FAs at 79 while WP:GM has 69 out of a total number of 4,640 articles. Currently we have sixty two Yorkshire featured articles: Henry Moore • George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore • History of Sheffield • York City F.C. • Joseph Priestley • Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C. • Valley Parade • William Wilberforce • History of Bradford City A.F.C. • Last of the Summer Wine • Ealdred (archbishop of York) • Paulinus of York • Wilfrid • HMS Endeavour • Cosmo Gordon Lang • Thomas of Bayeux • Cottingley Fairies • Wilfred Rhodes • Guy Fawkes • Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927 • Roy Kilner • George Macaulay • Frederick Delius • Battle of Towton • Halifax Gibbet • Gerard (archbishop of York) • George Hirst • Geoffrey (archbishop of York) • Len Hutton • Hedley Verity • Abe Waddington • Æthelwold ætheling • Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball • The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished • The Wrestlers (Etty) • Bootham Crescent • History of York City F.C. (1908–1980) • William Etty • History of York City F.C. (1980–present) • Candaules, King of Lydia, Shews his Wife by Stealth to Gyges, One of his Ministers, as She Goes to Bed • The World Before the Flood • Musidora: The Bather 'At the Doubtful Breeze Alarmed' • North Eastern Railway War Memorial • York City War Memorial • Northern England • Albert Pierrepoint • RSPB Dearne Valley Old Moor • Keldholme Priory election dispute • 2018 World Snooker Championship • 2019 World Snooker Championship • Capture of Wakefield • 2017 World Snooker Championship • 2017 EFL Championship play-off Final • 1985 World Snooker Championship • Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. • 1986 World Snooker Championship • 1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final • 2020 World Snooker Championship • 1984 World Snooker Championship • 1925 FA Cup Final • 2006 Football League Championship play-off Final • Acamptonectes There are also seventeen featured lists: York City F.C. Clubman of the Year • List of York City F.C. managers • List of York City F.C. players • List of York City F.C. seasons • List of Bradford City A.F.C. seasons • List of York City F.C. records and statistics • List of Leeds United F.C. seasons • List of Scarborough F.C. seasons • List of awards and nominations received by Arctic Monkeys • List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland • List of Hull City A.F.C. seasons • List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England • Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent • York City F.C. league record by opponent • List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) • List of York City F.C. players (1–24 appearances) • Bootham Crescent • Kate Rusby discography Thank you and well done to all those who contributed. Article Activity 1997 Football League First Division play-off Final was promoted to GA on 21st December Hector Munro Chadwick was nominated for GA on 21st December Hector Munro Chadwick was promoted to GA on 29th December 1997 Football League First Division play-off Final was nominated for FA on 30th December 2006 Football League Championship play-off Final was promoted to FA on 30th December 1901 FA Cup Final was promoted to GA on 4th January 1988 World Snooker Championship was nominated for GA on 8th January Acamptonectes was promoted to FA on 9th January Hector Munro Chadwick appeared in DYK on 11th January York City War Memorial appeared in TFA on 13th January Hilda Annetta Walker appeared in DYK on 22nd January 1987 Football League Second Division play-off Final was nominated for GA on 22nd January Brian Crabtree appeared in DYK on 24th January Member News There are 90 members of WikiProject Yorkshire! The membership is unchanged since the January newsletter: Thanks A very big Thank you to all the editors who labour away quietly and help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed. To members who have added suggestions to the ToDo list at Yorkshire Portal. To the football and rugby editors who have done stirling work in keeping abreast of the top clubs. To all the WikiProject Yorkshire editors who have been busy on vandal patrol at watchlist.  Great! Yorkshire articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Other Total FA 2 1 15 60 78 FL 1 16 17 GA 2 7 36 177 222 B 9 67 137 373 586 C 5 144 303 1,518 1,970 Start 1 242 1,258 8,703 10,204 Stub 21 352 5,657 3 6,033 List 4 12 978 994 Category 3,823 1 3,824 Disambig 21 21 File 22 22 Portal 94 94 Project 102 102 Redirect 2 194 1,348 1,544 Template 552 552 NA 3 3 Other 9 9 Assessed 19 486 2,116 17,679 5,974 1 26,275 Total 19 486 2,116 17,679 5,974 1 26,275 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 97,237 Ω = 5.10 Assessment Assess and review As of 28 January 2021, we have assessed 100% of all articles with a project banner. (Some new and additional article talk pages may still require a banner however) Aims After discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Yorkshire in April 2008. Specific aims for the project are:- To complete tagging and assessment of all Yorkshire related articles (See below) To recruit more active editors (See Member News) To bring our top level article Yorkshire up to Featured article status To bring all other top priority articles (currently 15 with 2 at FA) to at least Good article status To set up a weekly or monthly selected article improvement drive (See this month's feature below) To produce a regular news letter for circulation to members and apropos of the above a 2010 New Year article improvement drive/collaboration is being organised. Priority Articles The top priority articles that have been identified to date are as follows - Bradford • East Riding of Yorkshire • Henry Moore • Kingston upon Hull • Leeds • Northern England • North Yorkshire • Ripon • Sheffield • South Yorkshire • Wakefield • West Yorkshire • William Wilberforce • York • Yorkshire • Yorkshire and the Humber The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first. WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project The February 2021 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page. Month Dates Article(s) B class choice Start class choice 129 1 Sep 2020 ~ 30 Sep 2020 Middleham Hoard On the Yorkshire Buses 130 1 Oct 2020 ~ 31 Oct 2020 Nidd Valley Light Railway PD Ports 131 1 Nov 2020 ~ 30 Nov 2020 Charles Peace Queen Elizabeth Barracks, Strensall 132 1 Dec 2020 ~ 31 Dec 2020 Rother Valley (UK Parliament constituency) Ranmoor 133 1 Jan 2021 ~ 31 Jan 2021 Scarborough, North Yorkshire Salem Chapel, Leeds 134 1 Feb 2021 ~ 28 Feb 2021 Trolleybuses in Doncaster The Avenues, Kingston upon Hull Please nominate future articles for improvement at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Yorkshire. Please bear in mind... The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis. Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible. Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.  Thanks Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below... Written by Keith D • Template by Jza84 | Single-Page View Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself at WT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!

15:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I would to be trained for the CVU

I am fairly new here an would like to try to help Misplaced Pages as much as i can. This seems like a good option to start doing some right in the community. Please respond when you aren't busy. Starman2377 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Starman2377, thanks for reaching out, and I'm sorry I took so long to get back to you - I'm afraid it slipped my mind. I've got a student on the go at the moment, and don't really have time to take on another at present - have you considered approaching another one of the trainers listed at WP:CVUA? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Ill look for another trainer. Starman2377 (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes Hog Farm Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes Berean Hunter • Xeno Oversight changes Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Misplaced Pages has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Vandalism

Hi. User:InellectualThinker vandalizes articles. I want him to be blocked. - Aybeg (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aybeg, The User:InellectualThinker does not generally vandalise articles but you seem to have a dispute on the Article Baykar - best thing would be to discuss this on the article talk page. Please have also a look at Misplaced Pages:How to deal with vandalism. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aybeg - I'll go a further than that actually. As the term is understood here, WP:VANDALISM is defined as bad faith editing; an accusation of that sort, without supporting evidence, is often interpreted as a personal attack, which should be avoided. I haven't looked into the dispute between you that CommanderWaterford refers to, but you have two choices at this point:

• If you are convinced that the editor is intentionally damaging our articles, and are prepared to support that position with evidence, you can raise a thread about them at WP:ANI; be aware though that frivolous accusations of bad faith editing may lead to sanctions against the filing party.
• If you are just in a content dispute with them about what one of our articles should say, you should discuss it with them in a civil manner on the relevant article's talk page, or engage with dispute resolution processes. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Annandale High School on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Violation of AGF and PA

Hi, Girth Summit! Can I have your opinion on whether the comments by Steverci here warrant a warning (the user has previously been topic-banned from that topic)? They violated AGF the first time in the discussion, then I asked them not to repeat it again, yet they just replied with a "threat" to take me to ANI. Cheers. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, the difficulty with a situation like this will be harking back to conversations that were had elsewhere. I noticed that both you and Steverci were involved in another heated discussion about place names at Talk:Yerevan. I don't pretend to understand the significance of the place names/languages involved, but the issue appears to be a magnet for hostility.

So, how best to respond to a lack of GF is a tricky question. I'm trying to think now of a time where I've seen an 'AGF' warning template achieve the desired effect, and I'm drawing a blank. They often actually increase tensions, and all parties involved end up bickering about who started the argument. I can't tell you what you should do, but if I were in your situation I think I would aim to demonstrate my good faith by rising above any mud slinging, ignoring it completely and focussing on the content question. If you make it very clear that you are acting in good faith, accusations to the contrary become ridiculous. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's also why I avoided giving a warn to them about it right away, since it usually just ends up with them getting more angry. I'll just ignore everything in their comment that's not about the content we're discussing. Thanks for the help! — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/GoOKC

This is still open, I assume you meant to close it? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, oops, forgot to tick the box - thanks, closed now. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, BTDT. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, I had to look that one up! Appreciated, a lot friendlier than telling me to RTFM. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you train me on Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy

Hello, you can please train me on Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy so that I could have more experience in counter vandalism? Thanks. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 21:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rodney Araujo, thanks for reaching out. I'm afraid that I have a student on the go at the moment, and don't really have the time to take on another at present. You could consider reaching out to one of the other listed trainers, I see that some others have slots open. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 09:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello! I wanted to say thank you for the CVUA training and help in general that you provided me and I do not agree with the views of the person who impersonated me. Eyebeller 19:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Eyebeller, I'm glad to hear it. Welcome back. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Facts versus Rumours ;)

Hi, Girth Summit hope you are doing well - heads up, seeking for some advice: I am struggling with Richard_Scott_Smith, a blp - I have research access to all new U.S. Newspapers and the results give me that there is "only" a warrant for ident theft for this man - for anything else which is mentioned in the article or in the referring movie Love Fraud I do not find anything related. The given sources are articles about the "True Crime Documentary" covering the reports of the apparently betrayed women but this is not independent, reliable coverage in my eyes especially since I do not find no Court proceedings and logically no guilty verdict. Any idea? BLPProd impossible since sources given, I marked the frases with CN - anything else? PRODing? CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hounding

Hi, sorry to bother you with this ongoing situation but because you have dealt with it before, I figure you have some background. Newimpartial is under a One-Way I-Ban and not supposed to interact with me "in any way". El-C placed the I-Ban last year when they were a very active admin, in response to Newimpartial HOUNDING and refusing to stop when told to repeatedly by admins; I understand El-C has become busier and no longer has time to handle regular complaints so I am bringing this to you.

Newimpartial continues to jump into every disagreement or debate I have with any other editor to pile on me, currently on the LGB Alliance Talk Page. The only concession they make to the I-Ban is that they indent their responses under the other person's replies instead of mine, although they are clearly attacking everything I say. What is the point of an I-Ban for Hounding at all if the person is just going to keep ignoring it and Hounding anyway while simply pretending they're just talking to whoever you're debating with? Newimpartiall just can't resist following me around and trying to pick fights with me, even under a ban. It is beyond exasperating. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Query Per WP:BANEX point 2, I would like to ask whether I understood correctly this previous clarification, by El_C, who said in response to a similar question I'm not seeing where you have been addressed or mentioned by Newimpartial. They are allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve your edits. My understanding is that I have been observing both the letter and the spirit of WP:IBAN, which specifies that users not reply to each other in discussions or make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages with the exceptions specified in BANEX. I would encourage you to review the history of LGB Alliance and Talk:LGB Alliance and please let me know if you see anything questionable, or could offer any further clarification. Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, look, if there's something happening with respect to interaction (as described by WP:IBAN), then there are enforcement remedies that can come into immediate effect. But with both of you being regulars of the the WP:ARBGG topic area, WP:HOUND is not something that you are really able to invoke, unless egregious. It is reasonable to assume that both of you watch for any developments of note in GG pages, overall. As such, establishing any sort of prohibition to curtail an intersection (as opposed to an interaction), that's a challenging proposition, to say the least. El_C 02:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C I honestly don't know what the point of an IBAN is at all, then. Newimpartial just pops into any discussion or disagreement I have with any other editor and piles on, over and over and over, openly responding to the things I say while simply putting the indent under the other editor's comment. It's deliberate baiting and taunting and they never quit. It's like having some creepy Misplaced Pages stalker who just won't stop trying to make everything I do here as miserable as possible.Lilipo25 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, the point of it is that they are not allowed to revert you and that they are not allowed to speak to or about you (and the same informally applies to you). And that's about it. Again, from an enforcement perspective, for you to be able to form a cogent presentation alongside decent evidentiary basis, for something which may be this nuanced, I foresee challenges in that, is all I'm saying. Certainly, if you want to escalate your grievances, you are free to file a detailed report at WP:AE alleging a violation to the spirit of the interaction ban. I dunno, possibly you would be able to obtain relief? Ultimately, I just don't know. But to elaborate on the above, my sense is that it could prove difficult to achieve. But maybe not? Who knows. El_C 03:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C Fine, but I have played by every single rule - and the spirit of the rules, too - no matter how hard Newimpartial follows me around and baits and taunts and harasses me, for months and months on end. I am officially done. From here on out, I will behave in kind and I just hope I don't have to hear how I'm violating their IBAN when I do. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, what you do is your prerogative, and I can only offer my sincere hope that it all, somehow, works out amicably, even if against all odds. But, again, from my own perspective, I can only respond to a body of evidence in the form of a coherent report. I'd have to be outright omniscient to act otherwise. El_C 03:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, El_C, Newimpartial: So, I've read through that discussion and I have a slightly different take on it to El C. I'll begin by saying that I believe it's fine for NewImpartial to comment here in this thread, since I would view it as a legitimate and necessary discussion about the ban itself.

With regard to the discussion at Talk:LGB Alliance, I do see Newimpartial's comments as being in violation of the IBan. The References removed thread was started by a third party, asking what people feel about an edit that Lilipo made; Newimpartial chose to respond to their question, which is clearly commenting about her editing, and thus it encroaches on the ban. In the Lede wording thread, it's a thread that Lilipo started, again asking for views on an edit that she made - Newimpartial choosing to comment on that thread could also be interpreted as indirectly commenting on her, since they are again commenting about her edit. I can see that Newimpartial is making efforts to stay focussed on the content there, which is good, but I think they need to be more careful about avoiding commenting on Lilipo's editing.

With regard to the accusation of hounding, that's a pretty serious charge, and not one that should be thrown around without evidence. Newimpartial was editing the LGB Alliance article, and commenting on its talk page, before Lilipo was, and there can't be any suggestion that they followed Lilipo there. I don't particularly want to trawl through both editors' contribution histories - Lilipo, are there any other pages you'd like me to look at to support that charge? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, well, myself, I've been stretched pretty thin lately (though this is really par for the course for me), so by all means, please do mete out any remedies you see fit. I'm the admin who has been dealing with these two editors pretty much single-handedly, so any assistance on that front would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, El_C 14:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I had been thinking about asking you to reconsider the one-way IBAN, since I don't think it has been a net positive for the project either compared to the status quo ante (where I was ignoring Lilipo's comments but not under a formal IBAN) or compared to a 2-way IBAN (which wouldn't lead to the same enforcement questions, in my view). If you would rather not be dealing with these two editors, could I ask Girth Summit to consider revoking the ban or imposing a different one? Or should I take it straight to AE? Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, yes, absolutely, I invite Girth Summit to do whatever, by adjusting this AE sanction I had imposed (including lifting it outright or adding new remedies, etc.) as they see fit. Again, any assistance from them (or anyone!) would be greatly appreciated. The more eyes on this, the better, as far as I'm concerned. That said, not sure if the current state of the dispute warrants an WP:AE complaint (so as to tax scarce noticeboard resources — take a look there, there's so very few us active there, for the most part). Anyway, it may or it may not warrant that. I've not reviewed much recent evidence to be able to confidently advise on that at this time, one way or the other. But before even thinking about AE, if Girth Summit is inclined to step in, I'd let them do their thing first. I'm pleased to say that I'm leaving you in capable hands. El_C 15:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I'm not going to take any action right at this moment with regards to remedies and/or altering the ban right at the moment, I need to know more about the recent history. I will attempt to dig down into that soon. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

By all means please do take your time, and don't feel any urgency from my direction. I am staying away from Talk:LGB Alliance for now, pending some kind of additional feedback from you, though as you have seen there was no WP:HOUNDING involved. Nothing terrible is going to happen to that page as a result of my absence, anyway, since my perspective there (and at Graham Linehan for that matter) is very much that of the mainstream of informed editors. I question the one-way IBAN not because I desire to interact with the other editor, but because I do feel that my background knowledge of some of the gender-related controversies (including such sources as PinkNews) has been unquestionably beneficial to the project, and the conflicting advice I have received about Talk page participation (e.g. El C's previous guidance vs. your recent comment) adds a layer of difficulty for those (rare) pages where the other editor weighs in. That, and it is always a source of friction when I am accused of things I haven't done but am not (apart from this thread) allowed to say so (viz. "hounding" or "gaslighting"). So while this is by no means urgent, I do hope you will find an opportunity to take as deep a dive as you choose, whenever you feel so inspired. Newimpartial (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, why not reward Newimpartial for repeatedly violating an IBAN by removing the IBAN altogether? Makes perfect sense. While Newimpartial didn't follow me to the LGB Alliance page (we both came there from the AFD discussion of it and from the talk page of the previous version of that article, which was first put back in Draft and then deleted last month bc it was wildly in violation of NPOV), they did follow me to the Graham Linehan page and the Fred Sargeant page and others. More importantly, they've followed me around the Talk page of the LGB Alliance article and elsewhere, violating the IBAN repeatedly, but apparently the IBAN is meaningless anyway.Lilipo25 (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, please actually read what I have written above: I have told Newimpartial that I judge those edits on that page to be a breach of their IBan, and I've asked them to be more careful to avoid any further breaches. I have not said that I will lift the IBan, merely that all options remain on the table and that I will look into the history. You have asserted that Newimpartial jumps into every disagreement or argument you have, but until this last post you only mentioned one article. Just like El C, I am not omniscient, and have a duty to investigate properly and understand the situation before taking any action, which is why I asked you if there were other pages I should look at. You've now mentioned a couple of further articles, and there are also editor interaction tools which will allow me to get an overview of what has been happening. However, I'm a volunteer, it's Sunday afternoon, and looking into disputes of this kind isn't my idea of fun. You've come here asking me to help you resolve a conflict with another editor; and I'm willing to do that when I have time, but sarcastic comments like the one above isn't making me warm to the task. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

However, I'm a volunteer, it's Sunday afternoon, and looking into disputes of this kind isn't my idea of fun. You've come here asking me to help you resolve a conflict with another editor; and I'm willing to do that when I have time, but sarcastic comments like the one above isn't making me warm to the task — welcome to my world, Girth Summit! El_C 17:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El C, you deserve a pay rise! 20% sound about right? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Haha, Girth Summit — I'm just going to ask for a straight-up infinite pay raise (what's infinity times zero, again?). El_C 18:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

El C make it an easy decision for them - just ask for the sum of all natural numbers from 0 to infinity. You'll owe them about 8 cents... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

And here I imagined all the worlds I could buy. I guess you can't escape eternity, and also death and taxes.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 11:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

El C and Girth Summit You are both misunderstanding the target of my comment, which I will acknowledge was not artfully expressed immediately before falling asleep. My sarcasm was toward Newimpartial, for responding to an admin saying they had encroached on the IBAN by asking for it to just be removed altogether, not Girth Summit.

I have no expectation for an immediate solution to what is a very contentious and complicated issue between Newimpartial and I. I have been pushed well beyond exasperated. all the way to disgusted, by over a year of continual baiting, gaslighting, hounding and flat-out bullying and don't feel that my staying inside the rules when they simply will not has done me any good at all thus far.Lilipo25 (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Interactions analysis

Newimpartial, Lilipo25 OK, I've taken time to go through your contributions using an interaction analyser tool. Aside from various user talk pages and noticeboards, there have been four pages (and their associated talk pages) where your editing has overlapped:

• Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter Neither of you have been editing there since April 2020, so I don't think there's any issue there.
• Fred Sargeant We did this one to death last year. I see that Newimpartial has not edited the talk page since the IBan was imposed, and has only made a single edit to the article (to revert an IP editor), so I don't believe there is any ongoing issue there.
• LGB Alliance I've discussed this already. I do interpret a couple of Newimpartial's recent comments at the talk page as being in breach of the IBan, because they were made to threads that concerned Lilipo's editing.
• Graham Linehan You have overlapped in three discussions at the talk page here since the IBan was imposed. In this one from October, I see no interaction between the two of you, and so there is no breach. However, this thread from December was started specifically to address edits by Lilipo25. Newimpartial's contributions to the discussion were minimal, and focussed on content, but by my reading, Newimpartial's comment in a thread about Lilipo's editing was also a breach of the ban. There is another discussion on-going in February, in which I do not see any interaction.
• There are no examples I can find of articles which Lilipo25 has edited since the imposition of the topic ban which Newimpartial has then followed her to, so I cannot see any evidence of ongoing hounding behaviour.

With regard to the four pages above, Newimpartial is not banned from editing any of them, or from commenting on their talk pages, but while it seems to me that Newimpartial has been making efforts to abide by the Iban, I think that they have three times overstepped the mark by commenting in threads that concern Lilipo25's editing.

• @Newpimartial: You are banned from making comments about Lilipo25, directly or indirectly, so if the subject of a discussion thread is her or her edits you should sit it out. Provided you abide by this going forward, I do not see any need to apply further sanctions at this point.
• @Lilipo25: Newimpartial is still permitted to edit those articles and their talk pages, so you should expect to see their name crop up in general conversations there. I do not see any evidence that they have been hounding you since the IBan was imposed by following you to new pages. With regard to the comment above, please refrain from using sarcasm entirely when editing here - it really doesn't come across well, is easily misinterpreted, and just serves to add a layer of unhelpful hostility to any discussion. You should certainly not be directing it towards Newimpartial; if you believe they have breached their IBan, you should make a neutral, factual statement supported by diffs, and otherwise you should not comment about them at all. Please observe this going forward.

I'll be happy to address any further questions or comments either of you have about this. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 11:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, consider making no sarcastic remarks directed at anyone who is ibanned from you. It's unseemly for you to say anything sarcastic about them; really to say anything at all that isn't absolutely necessary, even in discussions like this one. —valereee (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Valeree Sorry, why are you involved in this conversation? Are you an Administrator? Because there are already two Admins here, so a third really seems like major overkill for one comment. And if you aren't an Admin, I can't even guess why you would have taken it upon yourself to intercede in such a manner on an Admin's talk page in an already-completed action between them and a user..Lilipo25 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee Pinged wrong username Lilipo25 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, valereee is an admin, and she has just as much authority as I do when it comes to taking action with regards to arbitration enforcement. It's not uncommon for admins to have a lot of people watching their talk pages, or for admins to comment on one another's. There is nothing sinister going on, there is no need for you to take that tone, she is giving you very good advice. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

How would I have any way to know they're an admin, Girth? I checked their page and they don't identify themselves as one anywhere that I can see. Every other admin I've ever seen has the plaque on their user page. For all I knew, they're just another user jumping in to pile on. I don't know why they wanted to say the same thing you had already said to me on your page anyway, but I don't think it's necessary to act like I was out of line for not being psychic here and asking why they were involved when they don't even identify themselves as an admin. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, have another look at her user page. She has an admin stats panel right under the userboxes, and she is in the category 'Misplaced Pages administrators' (although you have to scroll down to see that). We're not all obliged to have that little mop icon, and you shouldn't put too much faith in that anyway since there's nothing technically stopping a non-admin adding that to their userpage (although they'd be reverted if anyone noticed). Even if she didn't have the tools, she's the kind of person whose advice I'd urge you to take on board - she has been editing for many years, has about 40,000 edits, and has written more articles than I've had hot dinners. When she speaks, I listen. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of insulting you further with my lack of intuition, I had even less chance of knowing what "kind of person" someone I have never encountered before is than I did of knowing who they were. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, perhaps you're not in the habit of quickly looking into someone who contacts you - whenever someone I'm not familiar with addresses me, I check them out. I don't mean I do a thorough review of their editing habits, but I do a quick check to see whether I'm speaking to a newb, an SPA, a likely sock, or an experienced editor who probably knows how things work around here - my conclusions will influence whether and how I respond to them. Look at the user page (which, if you'd looked at it properly, would have told you about the admin status and extensive history of writing articles) and, if you feel it necessary, take a look at their contribs and hit '500'. There are various other user scripts you can use to find out more about them easily, but those two basic checks should give you an idea of who you're dealing with. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lilipo25, you can go to Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing and enable Navigation Popups, it lets you hover over a user name and you'll see how many edits they have, how many years they've been editing, and what user rights they have. —valereee (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Valereee - I always get stuck helping people with that kind of thing, I have all sorts of gadgets and scripts enabled, and can never remember which one does what. I use that one too, very useful. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

GS, I have to actually open prefs each time to make sure 1. I remember correctly where it is and 2. they haven't moved it. I was expecting to find it at Preference>Gadgets>Editing. I would have sworn that's where it was last time I sent someone there lol... —valereee (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I am going to stay out of the discussion on me in Newimpartial's new section about below, but I will state here that I believe I should have been notified by them when they opened a request for me to be IBanned.Lilipo25 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, I think it's reasonable for them to have assumed that you would be watching this thread, and also that they wouldn't want to be seen as breaching the Iban by pinging you. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, and just so we're clear on all of the rules, you have just agreed with Newimpartial's statement that even if they breach their Iban again in the future in the same way as they did - according to you - three times, you will not sanction them in any way? So although you have told them not to do it, you agree with them that there will be no consequences if they do anyway, because El_C interpreted it differently and they only need to abide by that interpretation and not yours in order to avoid incurring any penalties? Lilipo25 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, no, I told them that I was not going to sanction them for the past occurrences; I did not say that I wouldn't sanction them if it happens again. Now let's all three of us go do something else for a bit and stop thinking about each other. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will but please, when you return later, please look again at what Newimpartial asked and what you replied, because I am afraid that you did (apparently inadvertently and in good faith) agree to not sanction them in future if they breach again in the same way the three times you mention are the one where El C offered a different perspective in response to Lilipo's query, and the two nearly-identical instances at LGB Alliance that Lilipo asked you about here, yes? And that difference of opinion will not result in me being sanctioned unless I post again based on El C's prior interpretation rather than your current one?. Sorry to be a nudge about it, but that's kind of a large point. GN. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, I've looked at this again with fresh eyes, and I don't see the ambiguity that you do. The bit you have bolded is indeed the pertinent bit - sanctions will not be forthcoming unless they post again based on the assumption that it's OK to comment on your edits. I think that's clear; I also think that NI has been making efforts to abide by the ban, as they understood it to be; hopefully this will be the end of the matter, let's leave it there. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for 2-way IBAN

My preference about this has taken time to firm up, but I would now ask that the 1-way IBAN to be converted into a 2-way, and I believe I can raise the question here per this diff (if I am misinterpreting, I will willingly revert this edit, but I believe it to be appropriate here based on the comments cited this comment by El C).

The circumstances of the 1-way IBAN were as follows:

• On 8 July 2020, Lilipo accused me of incivility and submitted that I had followed her to other pages
• I replied that I had not initiated any conflict or engaged in any HOUNDing behaviour .
• El C then recommended that I avoid the appearance of hounding by refraining from following her around to pages you've never edited before, which I have observed scrupulously since then (I have not joined any Talk pages after Lilipo since that time, as far as I am aware).
• Nevertheless, Lilipo has continued to accuse me of "HOUNDING".

• Three weeks later, Lilipo took offense at a comment I made in an RSN discussion and raised the issue with El C
• El C then issued me a final warning
• Since that final warning, I have not responded to Lilipo in any way prior to the Talk page discussion (covered under BANEX point 2)
• However, one day after the warning I was participating in an ANI discussion and cited a comment by another user, which had been left at Lilipo's Talk page many months earlier Although this comment that had nothing to do with Lilipo and was relevant to ANI in relation to the other user, I now recognize that this was a mistake and that I should have reflected further before making the decision to post it.
• When Lilipo raised the issue with El C his initial reaction was that this was not an "interaction"
• Lilipo objected to this interpretation
• El C changed his mind and issued an IBAN
• I offered a voluntary one-way restriction instead of a formal IBAN
• El C refused to change his mind.

• Since that time, Lilipo has objected when she saw me participate in content disputes on Graham Linehan; she withdrew that objection after El C's clarification
• However, when I participated in a content discussion on another article, LGB Alliance (which I edited long before Lilipo), she raised the same objection, brought it to a different admin and received a different result.

Now I have never been confident of the merits of 1-way IBANS In general; in this instance, I have become tired of Lilipo's repeated accusations of things that I have never done - things in fact that no admin has ever suggested that I've done. This has culminated in the very recent accusation that I bait and taunt and harass Lilipo, - that I have been following (Lilipo) around and trying to pick fights with her - even though I have not replied to her or commented on her editing/behaviour in any way since last July (until the present discussion). I understand that Admin are not omniscient and that one can disagree with El C's previous clarification that I was allowed to engage content disputes, even when these also involve edits so long as I did not respond to Lilipo or comment on her interventions. But at this point, converting the IBAN from one-way to two-way would give me some piece of mind as I edit, and should result in less admin attention being required over time. Newimpartial (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, so, on the one hand, I agree with you that the accusations of ongoing hounding are not supported by the evidence, and have to stop. On the other hand, I don't see how I could justifiably respond to discovering that you have breached your Iban three times by sanctioning the other party. I am not minded to modify the Iban, but I will repeat my advice to both of you. You, NI, should desist from commenting on L or on her edits, being careful to avoid involving yourself in threads where she or her edits are the subject under discussion. L should refrain from making any further accusations about you, or indeed commenting about you at all, unless it is a factual and evidenced report of a breach. If hope you will both be able to abide by this going forward. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 23:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Right. Just to be clear, the three times you mention are the one where El C offered a different perspective in response to Lilipo's query, and the two nearly-identical instances at LGB Alliance that Lilipo asked you about here, yes? And that difference of opinion will not result in me being sanctioned unless I post again based on El C's prior interpretation rather than your current one (something I am not foolish enough to do)? Newimpartial (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, yes, those are the three breaches that I see, and no, I don't intend to apply any sanctions over them. Instead I've let you know that I view them as breaches, and why I view them as breaches. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I hear you. My last comment on this topic is that, while you don't see how could justifiably respond to discovering that have breached Iban three times by sanctioning the other party, I would observe that WP:BOOMERANG is an actual thing, and an editor managing to repeat at least a dozen unfounded accusations in this filing alone, after being told by multiple admin that they should not behave that way, might have earned more than advice, particularly as I am far from the only one that has had difficulty with the limited WP:AGF practiced by said editor. Newimpartial (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I think it would be best if we were to draw a line under it there - I think you just crossed the line between legitimate and necessary discussion of your own ban, and something else. You've said that will be your final comment on the matter - please make it so. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Scope of IBAN

I have just made this Talk page edit, which I believe to generously respect the requirement to avoid involving yourself in threads where she or her edits are the subject under discussion, and the principle from WP:IBAN that interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. I would like to verify that my interpretation fits with yours and that this is represents appropriate participation. It is a sincere edit, not a POINT edit, but I will naturally revert it if you see a problem. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a debate with another editor over my editing of the lead section, which I believe you told Newimpartial to "sit out" in future: You are banned from making comments about Lilipo25, directly or indirectly, so if the subject of a discussion thread is her or her edits you should sit it out. Girth Summit, this appears to be merely an attempt to draw your attention to my disagreement with the other editor, which was not reported to you by either that editor or me. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

NewImpartial It's possible that you didn't realise that the content under discussion was written by Lilipo25. From a skim through this history, I see that it was, so yes, please self-revert. I'd also suggest that your joining a discussion that is almost exclusively between two editors, one of whom you have an IBan with, looks pointy, even if meant sincerely. Please try to avoid giving the impression of pushing at the boundaries of the ban, and ask for clarification before, rather than after, making an edit. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial Capitalisation issues, sorry - reissue ping. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Self-reverted, but I don't agree with this interpretation of policy. The proposal I was discussing was written by another editor from whom I have never been banned, and I did not make any comparative comments or "join" the discussion between the other two editors. Perhaps you could take another look at the actual proposal and my comment on it? WP:IBAN seems fairly clear that it is supposed to prevent the banned editor from commenting the other editor's work, but I do not understand that it is intended to prevent an editor from commenting on new proposals by other editors. The statement that interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other doesn't seem to support your suggestion that I am giving the impression of pushing at the boundaries of the ban. Is this a question I should take to WP:AE for further clarification? Newimpartial (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, you are at liberty to seek further clarification - that is definitely the preferable approach, compared to testing the boundaries and then checking after the fact. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not feel comfortable with the implications of test(ing) the boundaries, which was not what I was doing at all - rather than checking after the fact, I was trying to verify my (quite cautious, in my view) interpretation of policy from the relevant admin. Had I been pushing boundaries (which is what testing implies to me, based in the prior discussion), I would simply have made an edit and hoped to evade scrutiny, but rather I invited scrutiny for what seemed to be an unquestionably safe edit. The talk page discussion in question concerned text that I had edited well before the editor from whom I am banned arrived on the page, and I was not referring to any of the intervening edits when I made my comment/!vote. The idea that I am banned from discussing new proposals concerning text I have edited before, just because another editor has made changes in the interim (which I did not in any way engage with), just seems like an implausible interpretation of WP:IBAN. The policy carries pretty clear message about what "interaction" means, when it lists reply to each other in discussions; make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly; undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means as the relevant examples. I clearly did not do any of these things, nor was I discussing any edits made by the user in question. I'm afraid I am at a loss here - it is not as though I didn't have a track record of reading policy text accurately for content and even participating helpfully in drafting discussions. I assume that it does not reflect your intent, Girth Summit, but from my standpoint this feels like gaslighting. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, that's an ugly word, but I appreciate that you've said it about your feelings, not my intentions. FWIW, I'm sure that Lilipo feels the same way about your editing, despite your intentions. I'm trying to be even handed here, and to apply my interpretation of policy evenly. One editor has proposed changing content that Lilipo wrote; in a conversation that was almost entirely between the two of them, you decided to add a comment. I see that as a breach but, as I said, you are free to seek another opinion. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that WP:IBAN makes a distinction between not interacting with another editor, and not participating in a discussion where that other editor is also participating. The policy seems to say that that second thing is OK so long as the banned editor doesn't comment on the other editor in any way (including edits they have made). But you seem to be saying that IBAN means not to enter the same discussion at all - that the second thing is not OK.

Also I didn't see any reference in the proposal I !voted on to content that the other editor wrote (or I would not have commented). It would be equally reasonable to regard the new proposal as replacing the content I had added or changed before the other editor arrived in the discussion - which was, indeed, the way I read and responded to the proposal. In fact, I didn't even look at the intervening edits in preparing my comment, only the proposal itself, which I suppose is why your interpretation seems so bizarre to me.

And apply(ing) (your) interpretation of policy evenly doesn't make sense to me in the context of a 1-way IBAN; I can see how it might be more plausible in a 2-way IBAN, though I still couldn't endorse your interpretation as an exegesis of our written policy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I have not said that it is about entering the same discussion. I have said that it does cover discussions where the editor or their editing is under discussion. When the material under discussion was entirely written by the other party, I veiw that as an indirect comment on them and covered by the Iban. You are free to seek other opinions on that. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

But GirthSummit, you are talking about discussions where the editor or their editing is under discussion. That simply is not true of the proposal that was made and my response to it. The proposal didn't refer to anyone's editing, and I didn't refer to anything except the proposal. Nor is the material under discussion was entirely written by the other party a factual or accurate statement - the first sentence, for example, is still substantially similar to how it read when I edited the lede earlier on. This still feels like gaslighting, TB completely H. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I did just have a eureka moment, so thanks for that. It seems that what may matter the most in admin enforcement is not whether an editor actually was "interacting" with another editor, but whether an admon feels that they were interacting. In case of the previously discussed edit to Talk:Graham Linehan, El C didn't feel that I was interacting but you do. And in the case of the recent edit, I don't see any plausible interpretation of facts or policy that would make it into "interaction", but that is the way it feels to you and people can't be talked out of their intuitions by appeals to fact or hermeneutics. It would be well for me to remember that admins in this sense are just like everybody else. Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, if by that, you mean that admins are human, then you are correct. All we can do is interpret policy as best we can. It is impossible to write a policy in such a way that interpretation is not necessary, and that we can all follow it mechanistically, judgment is required. I have already explained why I feel/view/interpret/understand your edit to be a breach of your Iban. I have not applied sanctions after finding three interactions that I see as breaches, because I viewed them as historic, and instead explained the situation. I did not apply a sanction for the clear and obvious breach that you made at 0015 this morning, on this talk page, because I understood that it would be your last comment on this theme. I have not applied a sanction for this most recent breach, because I really, really, want you to get what I'm saying to you without having to block you from editing. If you think my interpretation is faulty, you should ask for clarification. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding had been that the comment I made at 00:15 was covered by BANEX point 2 as part of my request for a 2-way IBAN, which I was actively pursuing at that time (I thought I made this explicit when I opened that subsection and cited your statement that this discussion was covered under BANEX 2, while offering to revert the request if it were deemed inappropriate). If this discussion were talking place somewhere other than your Talk page, I would simply remove the comments that you feel are inappropriate; in any case, that appeal is over, and I'd encourage you to remove/archive the whole section. There won't be any other breaches, since the next step clearly would be for me to invoke BANEX point 2 for a community review of the IBAN. I am not sure that would be a productive use of my available energy, however. Newimpartial (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Girth. I hope it's okay for me to ask you about others' behaviours when I can't decide since you're the only admin I know.

So, to give a little background, I moved some articles a few months back to anglicize the name and/or fix a mistake in the name. I recently requested a technical move to anglicize article (redirect was blocking move, so I couldn't do it myself) about the city of Şərur (as the anglicized name was the common name in English-media) and another admin understandably moved it into an RM (Talk:Şərur#Requested move 10 February 2021). There is so far one oppose vote in the RM. And the same user who opposed, has mass-reverted moves today that I had done months ago (some of his reverts weren't even my anglicizations and were basic title fixes). I asked them to not do such reverts without discussing, yet they just removed the discussion. So, I reverted 2 of their revert moves that were basic name fixing and not anglicization. And then.. this discussion happened on my talk page, where the user says they "do not care" and gives me a sort of "ultimatum" to revert my moves under 24 hours.

What do you think? And do you have any recommendations about what I should do? Thanks in advance. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, so, first off I advise you not to tell an editor with their history of contributions that they are vandalising - you know what vandalism is, and you know that to accuse someone of it frivolously isn't acceptable. I think that a broad RfC would be a good idea - it's clear that there have been historical discussions about place names that include non-standard letters in English, but I'm not familiar with them myself, so it would be good to get some participation from editors who are familiar with the history there. Changes that would affect lots of articles should be discussed thoroughly and centrally before implementation - there is no WP:DEADLINE, there's no reason to rush to make the changes. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, you're right, I was quick to jump to a conclusion there with the word vandalism, but the editors' mass reverts of moves and refusal to discuss made me think that it was acceptable. And I don't mind an RfC, my plan was to make separate RMs for each city/town article, but the editor's behaviour caught me somewhat off-guard, especially with the 24-hour ultimatum at the end.

What do you think I should do about their ultimatum? The article he has asked me to revert a move on is not even related to the topic dispute is about, it's a simple formatting fix. Should I comply with his demand or not? Thanks for the suggestions, they'll be great help for me in future. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

CuriousGolden, well, the BRD cycle would suggest that you shouldn't have reinstated your change after they had reverted it without discussing it. I think that the best thing for you to do, the way you could demonstrate most clearly that you are acting in good faith, would be to self-revert back to the status quo ante, and discuss. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, got it, will do that. Thanks for help! — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2

Good evening GS. I hope that things are going well with you and yours. I confess that the current state of the world is rather getting to me.

Meanwhile, on Misplaced Pages, things here seem to be getting unreasonably heated. I am not sure where to notify it/what to do, but imagine that an admin of your talents would know where to punt it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, must go to bed. I'll take a look first thing tomorrow. Sorry to hear that the current shit is getting to you - can't say it's great here, although Fleet is a great comfort. At least I'm on half term this week :) GirthSummit _(blether) 00:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, cheers Girth. No real rush, but things seemed out of order and not of the sites I looked at seemed appropriate for reporting it. If there is an easy answer to that, could you let me know it Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, well, while I was asleep two of the editors at that talk page got blocked. I've offered some words of advice, and will keep an eye on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

See ] and ] Shadow4dark (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, oh King of Kings. I shall have to try leaving a saucer of milk outside my bedroom door myself. Where should I have reported that? I first went to ANB, but their list of things not to post there seemed pretty all inclusive and nowhere else seemed to fit. I am pleased to heat that you are adapting well to Fleet. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, heh - you've been looking at my userpage! I am enjoying knocking off a few architectural articles as an enjoyable change from whacking people with the block hammer.

I think that WP:ANI was probably the right location to take it. WP:POVN is there for POV issues, and there's WP:SPI for socking, but that page is a mess of both of those with plenty of personal attacks thrown in for good measure - ANI (rather than regular ANB) seems like the right place. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, thanks. I shall do that next time. I did look at that, but the list of warnings seemed to include several reasons not to post that sort of thing there. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Can this user be blocked?

Hello admin, sorry to bother you but can Clock UTTP KKTK 2009 be blocked for vandalism as soon as possible? --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Block needed ASAP

Could you please block Clock UTTP KKTK 2009 asap for vandalism and being a sock? i hate to skip the AIV queue but nobody seems to be watching it and they seem to have no intention of stopping. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Pahunkat, Ashleyyoursmile  Done GirthSummit _(blether) 12:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit :-) Pahunkat (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Karthison R

Hi. I'm not understanding your comment "I can't see any evidence that they are using multiple socks", but you blocked them for socking anyway? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, I meant that I didn't think there would be sleepers - it looked like an obvious case of creating a new account after the old one was blocked and coming back to exactly the same subject, rather than someone with a load of sneaky sleepers. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Sounds logical, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Hi @Girth Summit: Do I still have an interaction ban with mztourist. I was hoping to leave a comment in an Afd they have posted. scope_creep 11:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep - your IBan is logged here. It is still in force, it can be appealed at any time via AN, the suggestion was that you not do so before November of last year. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I think I will leave it for the moment. I'll appeal it some point. Thanks. scope_creep 12:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Rough editing.

Dear Girth Summit. We were in contact a couple of years ago when I initiated the article Ross Kolby. Your assistance was very helpful and kind. I have enjoyed editing on the article and some others during this time. Now I wish to ask you about a couple of things. A Wiki editor has put a COI tag on the article and another tag has also appeared. I have tried to answer the questions this user has posted as best as I could, but he/she has simply stopped replying me. Personlally I think one should continue a dialogue one self has started. But there is not much I can do, it seems.

And today another user removed about some 80 % of the article, calling it "spammy nonsense". I try to make all my edits neutral, in a good explanatory language with reliable sources. But this user simply cut it all away as "spammy nonsense". I believe that is not how we should edit here at Misplaced Pages or treat oneanother. He/she correctly pointed out that I had uploaded a photo in a wrong way in 2019. Back then I was all new and did not know how to do it correctly. And I stated my point to his user that we are all new at a point, and that we learn and get things right after some time. I will now ask the person who gave me permission to use his photo to write to Wikimedia and send the standard text of transferring the rights.

I wish to ask you if that is really OK, to remove great chunks of an article because you personally find it to be "spammy nonsense"? Who decide what is good or not? I really loose the spirits in this editing when people are so unfriendly, respectless and become so harsh. I have done all my edits in good faith. Things might have been incorrectly edited sometimnes, but I always try to do things right, and I am willing to correct and learn. Now this first user who put the tags on refuse to reply to me so I have no idea what he will do or what will happen. And this other one seems a brute. I do not perform vandalism. I write as good as I can. Can I continue to edit when tags are being put on an article? Is it any use? Who can remove the tags, and what need I to do myself? I have tried to answer and sort all out. And can this other user just continue to delete any edit I do, because he finds it to be "spammy nonsense"? How may I handle this in the best manner would you say; Girth Summit? I am grateful for your advice. Best, Constituto (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Constituto, Praxidicae is not a "he", and Girth Summit, you may want to see . Best, Blablubbs|talk 22:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs I wrote he/she in the beginning of the text to include both sexes. That aside, is Praxidicae's edit OK? Are we to call other editors' work "spammy nonsense"? I have no problem with you checking, but wouldn't it be good to keep a respectful dialogue going? You asked me questions I answered but when I ask you something you go silent. I asked you what i might do to solve this, but you did not answer. I really try to respond in a respectful and professional way here. Best, Constituto (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Constituto, spammy nonsense isn't how I would have phrased it, but it seems that a lot of material there was a violation of our copyright policy, and potentially written in an overly promotional manner. I'm not going to get involved in the sock-puppet investigation; because of our prior interactions, I would prefer a different admin to look at that. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 18:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thank you for getting back to me. If I have violated the copyright policy in my editing I of course wish to correct that. Also if text is in an overly promotional manner. I never thought is was. To me this is a question of learning how to write and edit as good as possible. And as I have replied to the other two users I fully understand the need to correct things if they arre are wrong. And I wish to contribute to that. I just don't understand why dialogue and reversing of edits need to be so confronting and unpleasant. I try to learn as best as I can here. So again thank you for your advice and for responding. Best, Constituto (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove wrong and bad words from my company wikipedia page

Remove wrong and bad words from my company wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpsshj (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverting a Talk page?

Why did you revert a talk page. A talk page is there for a purpose. WHEELER (talk)

Its purpose is to discuss improvements to the article. Nothing can possibly be added to the article using your self-published research or blacklisted YouTube videos, and the rest of your post was your personal opinion about a conspiracy theory. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Sup Girth, are u on discord? 223.191.2.106 (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I have heard of discord, but I've never used it. Anyone on there claiming to be me isn't. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

But someone whose discord username is AndrewBase said that he was you. 223.191.2.106 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not. Must be a fan. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Notifications

Girth, I know you are aware of the rule which states that when an editor files complaints about another editor with an admin, they MUST notify the person being complained about. Yet again, it wasn't followed and no attempt was made by anyone to let me know so I could defend myself. And while I know the excuse will be used again that it might have violated the Iban to let me know I was once again being reported on, I think we both know that the report itself repeatedly violates that ban with statement after statement about me that has nothing to do with that user or with the ban, and so letting me know about it wouldn't have made that any worse.

There seems to literally be no end to how many times the same person can violate the Iban and even be told they are violating the iban by you without any consequences whatsoever. Worse, somehow if I point out that it has been violated yet again and I wasn't given the opportunity, again, by either of you, to even defend myself from false allegations, I seem to be the one you yell at for being in violation of their ban.

I will state only that I couldn't have misgendered anyone whose gender I do not know. I have now gone and looked at their bio and see they added - AFTER I mistakenly referred to them as he/him - that they use they/them pronouns. Please tell me that an attempt to trap me into a violation by adding pronouns AFTER I said 'he' and then claiming 'misgendering' is not going to go by unnoticed as every other violation does.I have ignored and stayed away from that user this week as you told me to, but as always, they cannot stop the harassment of me that never seems to bring any consequences. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: I wondered why I received a message saying the "page has been restored" instead of "your edit has been saved" so I looked - are you serious? You not only did not notify me, you removed the whole complaint from your page so I couldn't see it? How is this ok, Girth? Lilipo25 (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to keep coming back, but I am very upset by this happening yet again. I do feel harassed and stalked by this person everywhere I go on Misplaced Pages and with every edit I make, knowing they are combing through my contributions constantly, taking notes and reporting them all back to you, and this harassment is taking place with admin permission. It simply never matters how much I follow admin's rules to ignore someone - they aren't followed in regard to me, and that now seems to be not only permitted, but openly encouraged with things like this, where once again you just say "this is another violation of the Iban - now, you know you shouldn't do that".

I ignored that user completely for the last week and they still spent that time going through my contributions page, sifting for every negative thing they could find that has nothing to do with them - my opinion of a source that used an anti-feminist slur, even - and crying "she seems to feel empowered to keep on keeping on accusing!" about things that happened a year ago between me and some other editor, and once again - no consequences from you. Every single time, they end by saying to you "OK, I won't bring it up again" and then a few days later, another long list of things they've found in my contributions shows up in a complaint to you, even though I have not interacted with them at all in the meantime.

So I am now asking for your permission to do the same in response. I have repeatedly refrained from going through their pages of contributions to find every negative contribution they have ever made every single time they do it to me again, but I'm tired of having my reputation trashed like this repeatedly and never being able to fight back because I know I'll be the only one yelled at. I would like to go through their contributions on a regular basis and report all of their negative interactions to you and El C. I would like assurance from you that I will receive the same gentle consideration they receive every time and not be given any consequences, and that you'll only reply to my doing this in the very pleasant, encouraging tone that you use for all of their violations against me. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Lilipo25, but I'm out as far as any of that is concerned for the foreseeable future, due to reasons which are my own (also, sorry, I didn't even read your lengthy message, since there isn't a point for me to do so considering that). I do hope things end up getting resolved amicably, somehow, even if against all odds (damn, feels like I've been saying that a lot lately, but I do genuinely mean it in every instance). El_C 22:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, El C, sorry to have bothered you. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lilipo25, I confess that I'm not aware of a rule that says a user must be notified when someone mentions them, or even complains about them, on my talk page - this isn't ANI. I realise that it's polite to do so, but good manners wasn't the only consideration when I decided not to notify you.

I understand why you would be upset by that exchange. As you know, I agree that it was a violation of their Iban. I did not choose to sanction them for it, but others may feel differently - you are free to make a request that someone do so at WP:AE or at WP:ANI. Please consider the following before deciding whether or not to do that.

I don't pretend to be the perfect admin - I don't have all the answers. We have a very limited number of fairly blunt tools with which to encourage positive collaborations between editors. My block log shows that I am not afraid of using the block button when it's obvious that someone is a troll, a vandal, or a block-evading sock, but I very rarely use it on contributors who are actually trying to improve the project. I believe that both you and Newimpartial fall into that category, and so in dealing with the issues between yiu, I tried my best to encourage you to work together constructively, and then after the Iban was imposed, I have encouraged you just to ignore each other, to stay out of each other's way. My encouragement has not, so far, been entirely successful, but I hold out hope that it will be, if you choose to drop this.

I don't think that NI would have had to trawl through your contribs to find the diffs they presented here. I didn't read through them (since I considered their post to be an Iban violation, and told them as much), but I'm going to guess that they were all to pages that were on NI's watchlist. Having said that, if you continue to ignore them, and if, going forward, you follow WP:TPG scrupulously avoid personalising content discussions (as you have agreed you have done in the past), you'll have nothing to worry about if anyone does decide to review your contribs - you would have demonstrably stopped doing anything which anyone would need to do anything about.

So, why didn't I notify you, and why did I archive the discussion? Well, as I've said, I thought it was an Iban violation, so I wasn't going to act on it, I was not going to allow the discussion to continue, and TBH I didn't see what possible benefit there would have been in notifying you - you did not need to defend yourself, I wasn't going to consider a request made in violation of a ban. That being the case, the only possible result of keeping it live on my talk would have been for more people to read through it - essentially advertising an Iban violation. I preferred to archive it, in hopes of minimising the number of people who would see it, and so reducing any chance of any negative effect on your reputation, and of allowing both of you to move on more easily. That obviously didn't have the desired effect, so here we are.

I can't tell you what to do next. You are at liberty to file a report against NI at an appropriate location, if you want to do that. I'd urge you to keep it factual and to make no accusations that can't be clearly supported by diffs (in other words, don't speculate about their motivations) if you do so. Please don't bring it here though, I feel that any such report should be placed in a formal channel. If you want my advice however, I'd say just drop it. I think that NI has got the message about the Iban, I don't think they'll breach it again. This would be a point at which everyone could walk away and do something productive. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This wasn't a "mention" of me. It was a formal request to an admin that you place a ban on me (their second such request in ten days). And it was archived because they very specifically told you that you should archive it in their last comment. And with all due respect, you said pretty much the same things about how they learned their lesson about not violating the Iban any more and I should stop making a fuss the last three times they violated it and you didn't do anything. Not to mention the times you decided they just didn't realize they were violating it . And now it's "well, they probably follow those pages anyway, so it's no big deal if they spent the latest time they were ordered to leave you alone taking notes about every edit you make and reporting you for disagreeing with sources, etc"

I am genuinely curious at this point what they would actually have to DO before you acknowledge they don't care in the least that they have an Iban and intend to keep harassing me nonstop until they succeed in bullying me off Misplaced Pages? Lilipo25 (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, please don't tell me why I took certain actions. I had decided to remove the text before NI's final post - I was just waiting for their confirmation that they had read my last comment before I did so.

I still don't see that a request I can't possibly take any action on requires a notification, but I'm sorry that you have been hurt by my decision not to notify you. I have not told you to stop making a fuss, and I am also sorry that you have interpreted my advice in that way.

You assert that they intend to keep harassing you nonstop, and that they want to bully you off Misplaced Pages. That is the kind of speculation about their motivations that I am urging you to avoid, because it simply can't be supported by evidence. In suggesting that you simply disengage, that you ignore them, I think I am offering you the best advice on how to prevent any such outcome. Nobody can do anything to you if you abide by TPG, and ignore people who you think are trying to get a rise out of you. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing how my behavior must be "scrupulous" and abide by every rule to the letter if I don't want consequences, but at the same time, I must also just learn to ignore it when their treatment of me violates the rules over and over again. I can't imagine what the difference could be between them and me that the rules apply to us so very, very differently. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, I have not threatened you with any sanctions, so I don't know why you think you have to be perfect to avoid consequences. I am encouraging you to follow the guidelines, and observing that if you do, you don't have anything to worry about from people reviewing your contribs. I do not think I'm holding you to a higher standard than anyone else. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have taken some time to calm down because frankly, your response on top of their repeated stalking of my editing and harassment has been extremely upsetting.

I honestly wish you got just how offensive it is to reply to me on what is, by your own admission, your fourth (and is in reality your sixth) time giving them a wink and a pass for being abusive in direct violation of their Iban: if you continue to ignore them, and if, going forward, you follow WP:TPG scrupulously avoid personalising content discussions (as you have agreed you have done in the past), you'll have nothing to worry about if anyone does decide to review your contribs.

You might as well just say "Well, if you don't want to be harassed, stop asking for it." You made their abusive behavior and continual violations of the Iban entirely my responsibility. Again. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo25, all I can say is that I'm truly sorry that I have upset you, and that you have interpreted my comments in that way. I don't know how to express myself in a way that you will understand. I'm not saying that you are asking for it; I'm saying that if you believe that people want to use your contribution history against you, you can guard against that by ensuring that there is nothing in there that could be used against you. I don't see how I am making anything your responsibility; your own contributions are already your responsibility, regardless of any Iban that someone has with you.

Again - you are at liberty to request further action from somebody else, or even to complain about my lack of action and insensitivity, if that's what you want to do. I'm only human, I can only do what seems to me to be the best course of action, using my best judgment. Reasonable people could take a different view from me, and might respond differently. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have just made an error. I was writing up a report of this incident as you suggested to make to the Noticeboard and saved it to my sandbox to work on later. I did not realize that pings put in my sandbox would be sent out. I therefore accidentally pinged you, El C and the user with the Iban, as I had to name you all in the report and will be required to notify you when it goes up (to be clear, there is no complaint about either you or El C in the report - you are only named as admins who were involved). Sorry about that. Lilipo25 (talk)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Scope_of_1-way_IBAN:_Query. Thank you. El_C 17:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)