Wikipedia

User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 103

< User talk:Ritchie333
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Tryptofish in topic Blocked - IBAN violation
Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105→Archive 110

Blocked - IBAN violation

Latest comment: 5 years ago139 comments34 people in discussion

Ritchie, this edit is an obvious violation of your IBAN with Praxidicae. Since you have already been blocked once before for violating this IBAN, I have blocked you again for a week. You need to stop this behavior. Leave Praxidicae alone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Ritchie, I hope that you do not react to this by quitting WP again. I've looked carefully, and it seems very clear that you did indeed violate the IBAN. Maybe it was done carelessly rather than maliciously, but it really is a violation nonetheless. The best thing you can do is to accept that this is the case, and not fight it, but also not to feel hurt or discouraged. Shit happens, but people still respect you very much, and no one wants you to leave. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I refer the honourable gentlemen to the answer I gave a short time ago. EEng 01:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I hope you didn't strain anything, because this is quite a stretch. Banning policy specifically disallows direct interactions, and does not apply to simply editing the same page. The supposed "violation" here is Praxidicae tagging issues with an article, and Ritchie spending the next two hours fixing those issues. The only "interaction" to speak of was Ritchie removing the tags accordingly, which seems like more of a technicality than the actual intent of an IBAN, and certainly not something warranting a week-long block. It's particularly difficult to interpret a user spending hours rescuing an article with no actual interaction at all as a violation without going substantially out of your way to assume bad faith. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie has been explicitly asked to leave Praxidicae alone, particularly with regards to responding to her CSD tags. Responding to a CSD tag she placed on a page is an explicit violation of the IBAN, especially considering he removed the G11 tag she applied (IBANned editors are not permitted to "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means"). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
So, copyvio article is tagged by Praxidicae with CSD, then Ritchie333 rewrites the article without any copyvio. How was Praxidicae harmed in this? El_C 02:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie is subject to an interaction ban that prohibits him from interacting with Praxidicae. One of the main reasons the IBAN was enacted was Ritchie's insistence on hovering over Praxidicae's CSD tags and reverting them. This edit was a continuation of that behavior. I'm sorry if you can't see that that's problematic, but the quality of one's edits has never been an excuse for violating any kind of ban - topic, interaction, or otherwise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. But maybe Praxidicae can be persuaded to waive any objections to Ritchie333 responding to her CSDs if he ends up spending a few hours actually rewriting each of these tagged articles! El_C 02:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This pattern is shown in the histories of Bill Homewood, Balaguer Guitars, and Vern Watts to name a few, all in a very short period of time. Additionally you can match other articles where is just seems like Ritchie is stalking Praxidicae's contributions with the amount of time between edits and frequency of this occurring. This is directly prohibited in our harassment policy and is why the IBan was enforced here. So while I get Ritchie is improving articles, there are millions more to improve instead of stalking her contribs for them. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to improve Bill Homewood because The Adventure Game was one of my favourite TV shows as a child; I was interested in Balageur Guitars because I'm a musician and like reading articles about gear and I can't even remember editing Vern Watts except I note the redirect was kept at RfD. I pretty much never look at who tags an article; just what the tag is and what action I should take towards it. Might sound a bit callous, but I generally don't particularly care who writes the encyclopedia, on the grounds that our readers probably don't either. Who tags an article is of no interest to me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
How do you further explain then the constant editing behind Praxidicae? Even down to stalking the AfDs she nominates to edit within the next minute? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
That link times out for me. There have certainly been occasions where I have declined a CSD and seen it go into AfD while I’ve been thinking of improving it, so a decision has probably already formed in my mind. I will say this is the first time anyone’s mentioned this to me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It may take a few loads, but it will show. In the meantime, i've uploaded the first two screens of it. File:Harassment evidence part 1.jpg & File:Harassment evidence part 2.jpg -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I can’t for the life of me recall what I was doing with the AfD log, and in the Flooded With Them Hundreds RfA, that was just pile-on comments about my oppose as I recall. I don't have any particular memories of any of the other stuff; it's all ancient history, water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The interaction analyser works for me and I've drilled down on some cases. This doesn't look like harassment; the timing just seems to be a natural consequence of new page patrolling. For example, look at the history of Balaguer Guitars. That page is created at 18:36 and Praxidicae tags it for speedy deletion at 18:38, just two minutes later. Ritchie333 responds to the speedy deletion tag at 18:59, which is 21 minutes later – ten times longer than the initial reaction time. Presumably, he was working the speedy deletion queue or new page feed and was attracted by the title of the topic, being interested in guitars. This looks to be exactly what you'd expect for new page patrol work, where new articles are acted on as soon as they are created. Ritchie is an admin and so is expected to respond to speedy deletion tags speedily. Twenty minutes is plenty of time for other admins to act but I suppose that no other admin was active or interested at that time. The real issue seems to be that Ritchie hasn't just been rubber-stamping Praxidicae's tags but has been pushing back in some cases. But that's the correct process and Ritchie looks to be acting in good faith because they agree with Praxidicae in other cases. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuvasri Lakshmi (2nd nomination). Praxidicae tagged a new creation with G4. Ritchie declined the speedy deletion but then !votes Delete at the resulting AfD, where the topic is given due consideration. Interactions of this sort will happen routinely at NPP as the same crew of editors is working the same set of recent creations. Differences of opinion are to be expected and should not be characterised as harassment because this will tend to discourage admins from working in this area and so work won't get done. Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • By the indention, I assume that you are replying to me except that I don't see how your response is not a strawman (never did I say that this was not a technical violation or that this does need to stop) and address the necessity of the chosen time-span, which was my original query. ∯WBGconverse 07:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with El_C here that it seems perverse to punish an editor for quietly rescuing an article that we would otherwise have lost. Perhaps Arbcom would prefer Ritchie to message other editor(s) off-wiki when he sees her tagging something that could be rescued? We lose an awful lot of articles because no one willing or able to rescue them saw them in time; Praxidicae is performing a valuable service in spotting copyvios, but copyvios can be fixed if the topic is notable, so that people other than admins, such as readers, can see the articles. Surely we should demonstrate that we value that, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Imagine suggesting that anyone else who is subject to an IBAN should get around it by emailing other people off-wiki to have them proxy edit for them. Really and honestly imagine making that suggestion about any other IBANned editor. No, Ritchie should not alert other editors off-wiki about anything Praxidicae is doing. Ritchie should do what anyone else who has been IBANned is expected to do and forget that the other editor exists. As Amanda said, there are millions of other articles to rescue; he can rescue those. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Imagine thinking that quietly fixing the problems with the article, thereby rescuing it from deletion in the best way possible, is harassment. I personally can't imagine thinking that way. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Stalking and harassment is a serious and credible concern, especially when it is organized and recruited off-wiki. Mkdw talk 06:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yet Arbcom has trivialized stalking by classifying remedying the problems the editor identified as stalking. (I think we can agree it definitely wasn't harassment, but I fail to see how remedying the problems in an even better way is stalking, or should cause any disquiet, if the editor's concern was with the problems identified in the tags, as surely it was? Arbcom is in fact leaving Ritchie with no alternative except seeking others to proxy for him (if he happens to notice who left the tags; I now see he admits he hadn't even looked, just set to work to fix the problems. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
If only it has been limited to that since his IBAN. Ritchie has continued to discuss Praxidicae on off-wiki forums, continues to discuss the matter with ArbCom, and now violated his sanction on-wiki. We have received several complaints from editors within the English Wikipedia community and it may very well escalate to a point beyond ArbCom's purview. Mkdw talk 06:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I have tried to discuss it with you via email but you never reply. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Odd considering between all the members of the committee, including myself and Worm That Turned, you have received a few emails [over the past few months], including at least one since you have been blocked. Mkdw talk 07:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I’ve received one reply to the email I sent WTT yesterday, an offer to meet up and discuss issues about a month ago, and that’s about it. I’ve certainly had nothing from you at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I sent you a lengthy email on August 27 and you responded a month later on September 30. You received it because my email is in the reply body of your email back. Mkdw talk 07:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I was advised to send that by WTT, after I'd had a productive discussion about these issues in the pub and he understood where I was coming from. I was originally going to ignore it, but he advised sending a follow-up email politely discussing the issues. That's the 30 September email. I appreciate you're all busy chaps, there's not many left, and Arbcom is the most thankless task in the world, but even a holding reply like "Thanks for your reply, we're looking into it and will get back to you". I would have happily discussed all issues off-wiki via email with Arbcom until all parties were satisfied, even if it took months. But I don't think our conversation was in any way finished as I identified key problems that ought to be addressed. And ironically enough, one of those has now manifested itself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: ...that'd be ArbCom's reverse ferret  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 07:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
No, he addressed the G11 tag. The two are VERY different and it's pretty clear that this needs more discussion before someone just hands out an Arb block. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Winged Blades of Godric, I personally strongly agree with the one week escalation. Ritchie is most certainly not new, and as an admin should clearly know by now what is and isn't allowed when under an IBAN with another editor. The primary contention with Prax and Ritchie was the CSD tags, and regardless of whether he improved the article or not, he clearly removed the tags with hardly any time for any other admin to address them. He began publishing edits (starting by immediately removing the tags with the edit summary "kerzapp"), to that article less than a half hour after Prax added the tags, so short a timespan may also deserve some scrutiny. Regarding what El C proposed, I doubt that they would be willing to do so, even if they were allowed by the IBAN to mention Ritchie directly or indirectly except in the context of appeal. To Yngvadottir, I wouldn't call removing CSD tags, revdelling 12 revisions, and violating an IBAN "quiet" in any sense. Ritchie had a choice to walk away from that article, other admins would have attended to it as needed soon enough (WP:NODEADLINE). As I pointed out, it was less than a half hour before he got involved. If it had languished for days, I might be more sympathetic. Frankly, I'm a bit skeptical that he didn't notice Prax in the edit history when revdelling. Waggie (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
As can be seen from the history, the tags were not merely removed, but addressed - the entire prose had to be rewritten so it did not closely paraphrase the original source from the Victoria Warehouse website, and also remove any flowery and self promotional language. This needed to be done immediately and up front; simply removing the tags would have been silently putting an undetectable copyright violation in the encyclopedia, which is not acceptable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, I appreciate the response, thank you. I'm not denying that the issues were addressed, and I agree that it's a good thing. I don't think anyone is denying that. However, my concern is that you showed up very rapidly at that article (less than 30 minutes), and that another admin certainly could have addressed the issue in at least some fashion in a timely manner. The issue is that you clearly know that you have an IBAN with the editor who placed the tags. Someone else could have easily addressed these issues. Indeed, if I AGF and assume that you realized mid-way through your editing that you had violated the IBAN, you should have stopped then, instead of continuing. I'm sorry this is confrontational, but can you understand my concerns? Thanks again for your time, Waggie (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Waggie: FYI, your concerns are misguided: perhaps refocus on this. The loneliest number, and all that. As well, passive-aggression is not mandatory, whatever you may have learned in your three years here. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 06:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then, though I think I'll do it a little more politely and constructively. Best wishes. Waggie (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
No, ​ we will agree that you do not have the moral authority to comment on content creation. One article in three years and nearly three-quarters of your edits using semi/automated tools? Your opinion here is unhelpful and unnecessary. ——SerialNumber54129 06:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
And you aren't addressing anything that was said, just attacking the editor with an Ad hominem attack. Care to provide any actual evidence or just wish to attack the editor? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: I'm sorry? Would you like links that prove...err...one page created and 72% semi/automated edits in three years? Or do you think it's useful that totally uninvolved editors arrive on blocked users' talk pages to inform far more experienced editors than they that the block is good? That's not just unhelpful and unwarranted, that's verging on harassment also. Which is kinda ironic, no, since that was what this supposedly well-founded block was based on. No ad hom, no aspersion, and calling an apple an orange does not make it so. ——SerialNumber54129 06:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand what harassment is. It's a "pattern of repeated offensive behavior" as defined in WP:HARASSMENT. And I was speaking to the evidence where anything that was said was wrong. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you prefer it described as enabling trolling? The principle stands, those who choose not to see that, will not. ——SerialNumber54129 06:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose we must simply disagree then, though I notice the discussion here is about editor conduct and IBAN violations, not content creation. That said, I stand by my edits as constructive and useful to Wikipedia, regardless of their specific nature. However, if you take issue with any of my edits for whatever reason, you're welcome to take it to the appropriate venue and it can be hashed out there. Please note that I do not intend to respond to you any further here, as this clearly isn't achieving anything constructive in the context of Ritchie's block. Waggie (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Waggie: As you can see from my mainspace contributions last night, I was working on improving Marshlink line, rewriting the initial history from new sources as requested, and having beavered away at that for a bit, I needed a break. I often look at CAT:CSD to see if there are any articles I can fix instead of delete; much of the time there isn't, but there are occasional diamonds in the rough. I spotted the Vic Warehouse article, and thought a live music venue article looked like just the topic I might enjoy improving up to DYK standards. Incidentally, that's why I paused once all copyvios were removed, everything was reliably sourced, and there was more than 1,500 characters of prose, which is the minimum floor for DYKs. Why did I want to do this? Well, it's simply because I keep an eye on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs and want to bounce up the table a bit. Incidentally, CAT:CSD lists pages in alphabetical order; I don't know how recently the candidate was added to the list, who made it, or under what category. I just trend towards topics I might want to edit. Occam's razor is useful here - the simplest explanation ("writing articles and nominating DYKs is fun") is frequently the most appropriate one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie, thank you for the explanation. Waggie (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You should have noticed that the editor who tagged the page was Praxidicae, and left it alone. It’s as simple as that. Your ongoing harassment cannot be annulled by your creating content simultaneously. Vermont (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why anyone should notice who does what tagging. It should be irrelevant, particularly when the work conducted was 100% to the benefit of every single human being on planet Earth and of precisely zero consequence to Praxidicae who I'm sure would also be pleased to see that an article had been saved and completely revised to the betterment of the project. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and fixing the issues she had correctly identified; one presumes she tagged for speedy deletion because she thought no one had the time or inclination to fix them instead. See my comments above, glad to see agreement. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
"kerzapp", if I recall, came from Uncle G, and I thought at one point was a shortcut to WP:Blow it up and start over. In other words, "The current state of this article is unsalvageable, I'm redoing it from scratch". Although having just had a look, Wikipedia:KERRRZAPPP goes to WP:The Heymann Standard. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ritchie333 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, I didn't notice who had tagged O2 Victoria Warehouse Manchester for G11 and G12 until I had finished the first urgent rewrite to avoid close paraphrasing and excessive puffery and hit "save", by which point it was probably too late. For what it's worth I thought the tags were justified and deletion would have been within the bounds of administrator discretion; I just fancied improving the article so I could nominate it for Did you know? - as a musician, I'm interested in articles about live venues and my interest in Manchester history and architecture has been piqued by the meetup earlier this year. Anyway, I would like to be unblocked to do that, to continue my working in improving Marshlink line towards FAC, and to attend to any GA and DYK reviews I have put up that require my input. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline. Since the block has been clarified to be an arbitration enforcement action, no admin can unilaterally unblock. You'll need to request an appeal to WP:AN or convince Premeditated Chaos to unblock you. Sorry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ritchie, WTF have you done? I can't unblock you because I regard you as a friend and therefore have a COI. It seems as if you possibly did abuse your iBan, but these types of ban are indeed easily and innocently breached. Unless another admin will unblock you, it looks as if you might have to sit this one out, but for heaven's sake don't risk compromising your adminship and above all, don't leave again in a fit of pique. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Second Kudpung's comment here. I have been watching this discussion with some bemusement, unsure what to make of it. I do think the block was heavy-handed, particularly given that the original 24-hour block was widely condemned and the next step above that should be a 72-hour. But an IBAN is an IBAN and it should really be possible to edit without infringing it. I have no idea if your editing of this article shortly after Praxi tagged it was an innocent coincidence, or if it resulted from you looking at her contribution history, but either way please don't take this badly. Sit out the block (unless an uninvolved admin decides to remove it), move on from this, and if you see that something you want to edit has been recently touched by Praxi. It just isn't worth the hassle and we really really don't want to lose you as either an editor or an admin. Wishing you all the best, and I look forward to the continued push to FA for the Marshlink line when you're back.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh look, another ridiculous situation bought on by admins (I use the term lightly) who clearly have issues with Ritchie. Rinse, repeat. Jeni (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(tps, feel free to remove) Ritchie333: I don't think it would be in your best interest to be unblocked by the community after being blocked by an arbitrator enforcing an arbitration decision of this nature.

And I know this is somewhat out of the committee's hands (and the editor who alluded to it probably did not mean it in such a manner), but the new 'keep your nose clean, or T&S might step in' aspect of conduct enforcement indeed has a significant chilling effect on editorial and administrative action, and that concerns me. I'm curious if it introduces Section 230 issues.

I trust it would be safer for you to appeal the block directly to the committee. –xenotalk 13:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This is all very troubling. Arbs telling Ritchie to "leave X alone" when Ritchie just fixed up an article. People uploading images called "Harassment evidence". Suggestions that a purely editorial action could result in a T&S hit. We're now clearly in the realms of guilty until proven innocent. Jesus, WTF has this place become? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
A place where "editors" are now blocked for rescuing articles, and those that enable it can still claim to be...editors? ——SerialNumber54129 15:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I get an IBAN is an IBAN and all ... but come on who's going to check who tags what before working on an article?, I'd prefer if both could work on articles together providing they don't make reference or revert each other.... Prax can do what they enjoy and Ritchie can do what he enjoys .... happy days. –Davey2010Talk 14:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
If you were under an interaction ban that stemmed primarily from hounding an editor over their CSD tags, I would 100% expect you to take the responsibility to check who tagged any article you were handling at CSD. It takes two seconds to click the history tab and read the username. It's not that difficult. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
How far does this bureaucratic overeach extend then? What if Praxidicae had made the last-but-one edit? Any edit? Is Ritchie effectively banned from any article that Praxidicae now edits? Or is it just CSD tags Praxidicae places that Ritchie is prohibited from addressing (and addressing well, with no hint whatsoever of all this screaming "harassment")? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
IBAN provisions specifically state that editors under an IBAN cannot revert each other by any means; Ritchie's removal of the CSD tags Prax placed was a clear violation of that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Premeditated Chaos Oh, I thought Ritchie's first edit was to remove a whole heap of copyvio trash, not simply to "revert" the edit. Can you clarify that please? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Removing her tag is still a revert of her edit, regardless of what else he did alongside. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
"her" tag? Are you joking? The edit did much more than that and you know it. Are you know suggesting that Ritchie has to check the history of every single article he ever edits to check that he does not remove content ever added by Praxidicae? Or just CSD tags? It's important this is made clear because what Ritchie did was not a revert of Praxidicae's edit, it was the removal of a bunch of copyvio back to a point where the article could be salvaged. It actually had nothing to do with any other editor whatsoever, but given that Ritchie is being watched and people are assuming bad faith now, I guess we're now in a WP:ABF project. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
So if an admin enacts upon a G12 request by deleting the copyvio and stubbifying the article they are in fact “reverting” the tagger? That’s quite a stretch. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He removed the G11 tag she placed as well, which is a revert no matter which way you slice it. But even without the G11 removal, admins should not be taking admin actions involving people they are IBANned with. That ought to be obvious. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
No, he addressed the G11 tag. The two are VERY different and it's pretty clear that this needs more discussion before someone just hands out an Arb block. And as you have been told in black and white, he wasn't deliberately taking actions involved with people he was IBANed with, he was fixing an issue on an article which happened to be tagged by Praxidicae. The two are at opposite ends of the spectrum but we just lumped on a one-week ban without discussion. ABF. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, PMC, that’s incredibly unconvincing, if not utterly pathetic Wikilawyering. We all know what “reverting” is, and you damn well know that removing tags because they are no longer needed because you’ve fixed the issue is is very obviously not the same as reverting. Christ, what a feeble justification. Reading this thread, it’s exceedingly obvious no one can come up with any good reason for the block, which we reasonable people are conveniently barred from overturning as a bad block. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, quite a stretch indeed. I think we need clarification on what IBAN really means now. What is the statute of limitations on any of Praxidicae's edits - will Ritchie get a month-long ban for editing an article previously edited by her a month ago? A year ago? Or just from the point of the IBAN? Is Ritchie now obliged to check which words were contributed by which editors before editing any article? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I would not and no amount of blockings would change that, If I were IBANNED I honestly wouldn't check the history at all .... I just wouldn't care to be honest. –Davey2010Talk 15:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Davey2010, well I hope that's never the case for you then because I would hate to lose you as an editor and I would hate to lose Ritchie as an editor. I will admit that I myself don't always check the history before declining a CSD (see evidence of that here which features a cameo by Ritchie) because I'm not looking for reasons to delete, I'm looking for reasons to keep so I get that. I also am fortunate enough that I'm not under an iBAN and if I ever were I would either need to adjust my actions or know that I could be blocked. "Don't care enough to change my actions" can be an explanation, and a fair enough one if a person's willing to accept the consequences, but it's also not a reason to undo a block for an IBAN violation (an IBAN placed because of interactions around potential speedy deletions). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Barkeep49 that means a lot, Same here you're a fantastic editor and I'd hate to lose you, IMHO checking the history would be time consuming and I guess in mind the time it takes to flaff about looking at the history could've already been time saving an article. –Davey2010Talk 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Completely unrelated and taking to users talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @Mkdw, DeltaQuad, and Premeditated Chaos: I have sent you all a copy of an email I received by mistake a few weeks ago. Assuming it is authentic, and there is no reason to think it is not, at a minimum it sheds some light on Praxidicae's the author's real world 'behavioral pattern' which should be considered here. Jbh Talk 15:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC) (Last edited: To not impute authorship since it is unclear from context. 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)) (Just saw this edir conflicted and did not save)
  • That's a hell of an accusation, and my preliminary looks show that this is completely out of context and that the text you saw was not written by Prax. I've redacted the accusation for the time being. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I had changed it an hour or so ago. The email read like it was being forwarded to the target but that may simply be because of the context in which I read it -- addressed to me, not a report since no one reports such things to me. Jbh Talk 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Xeno is quite correct, Ritchie; no one except ARBCOM can lift your block at this point without risking instant desysop, else I'd have done it already. Might I also suggest you appeal directly to them? (To be clear, I also have thoughts about the substance of this mess, but I don't think this is the time and place). Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to hear a sitting arbitrator say that. I see no reason to think that this IBAN is some special ArbCom iBAN which is unappealable or appealable only through AE/AN. To me it looks like the arbirtration committee, as is their remit, placed a 2 way iBAN (couched in other language but 2 way never-the-less) and then an arbitrator, in their capacity as an administrator, placed this block. As such I think another, uninvolved administrator could respond to the unblock request above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
So I was just informed by a clerk that this is an arbitration enforced action and so can only be appealed at AE/AN. My apologies for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
How were you informed? AE blocks need to explicitly mentioned in the block-log per policy. ∯WBGconverse 15:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The IBAN was imposed by ArbCom, so presumably blocks made by admins applied under its purview can't be simply undone by another admin. Maybe some part of procedure hasn't been followed, but I'd take it as that.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be so per PMC's reply to Carcharoth over User_talk:Premeditated_Chaos#Hello. ∯WBGconverse 16:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The relevant policy is WP:NEVERUNBLOCK. The clerks can handle the paperwork of logging (I don't know that it needs to be, the IBAN was imposed by motion rather than via a case, so the relevant procedures are obscure). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Despite the fact that this block was not tagged with an Arbitration Enforcement template, it is a block for violating an arbitration decision, and therefore the policy spelled out at WP:AEBLOCK applies. This block can be overturned by consensus at AE or AN, or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. The IBAN itself can only be lifted by the Arbitration Committee. – bradv🍁 16:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm missing too much info to comment knowledgeably here, but perhaps some percentage of this is correct:
    • This was an AE block that was not identified as an AE block. That should be rectified by User:Premeditated Chaos before an admin sees the unblock request and acts on it.
    • I get the impression this block was discussed on the ArbCom mailing list before it was made. If so, that should be made clearer.
    • It is very difficult for people to differentiate between innocent accidental interaction caused by both of them working on NPP (which would make this an overreaction), and continual low-grade pestering done in a way to have plausible deniability (which would arguably make this too short a block). My instinct is that this was an innocent interaction, if only because I've talked with Ritchie enough on and off wiki enough to strike me as a decent human. But there is a whole lot that I know I do not know.
    • Perhaps a way forward would be for Ritchie to acknowledge that because of this difficulty, he will in the future spend the extra 10 seconds needed to find out who has tagged an article before he edits it, and choose to edit another article instead if it was tagged by Prax.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I've adjusted the block log to explicitly say it's a block made to enforce an Arbcom sanction. The block was not discussed or voted on on the mailing list. I saw the complaint because I was online, I looked at the edit, and I made the call to block. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos: You said I saw the complaint because I was online. Did someone post a complaint on-wiki that drew your attention? If so, could you please provide a diff? (If in fact it was off-wiki and private, I'm obviously not asking you to link to that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
No, it was posted to our mailing list. I happened to be in the process of dredging my inbox when it came in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think that's reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the fix and for the info. I assumed the large number of Arbs commenting here implied otherwise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I replied to the email on the list to advise I'd done the block, but it wasn't voted on prior to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
And just to expand upon Floq's third point, we are now assuming guilty before innocence, we're going for WP:ABF from now on, is that the case? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
There's an IBAN violation in black and white and I blocked to enforce the IBAN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
(a) not at all, as explained, her edit wasn't reverted, the article was stripped back to a salvageable state. You did not communicate with Ritchie, just blocked him. For something that could (and has) easily been explained. The project is dying a death here, WP:ABF rules. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Dubious “arbitration decision” that was short-circuited behind the scenes to avoid community scrutiny aside, we have a very troubling trend here. We have an arbitrator here that demonstrated zero understanding on how arbitration enforcement usually works, in addition to questionable understanding on common blocking practices, in particular Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. This is precisely why templates like {{Uw-aeblock}} exists. We initially had no idea whether or not the block was enforced as an arbitrator, or in their capacity as an administrator. We also initially had no idea whether or not the block was an arbitration enforcement over an arbitration decision on an interaction ban, or simply a block over violation of a mere interaction ban. All of these are important details that needs to be spelled out explicitly when the blocked is being made, not afterwards.

This ongoing trend of skipping over WP:AE for requesting arbitration enforcement, in addition to having arbitrators following editors around on and off Wikipedia, and hastily enacting disproportional sanctions while failing to follow any of the common administrative practices and procedures (instead of assessing the situation in order to make an informed decision that are explained with clarity and appears neutral to all parties), is frankly depressing. Alex Shih (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like I'm wikilawyering, this looks to me like an adherence to the letter of the WP:IBAN law instead of the spirit, specifically the bullet point "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". If Ritchie had simply reverted Prax's CSD tags with no other changes, I believe the block would be justified. One question I would like to put forth is, is there a length of time after which edits would not be considered a violation of the IBAN? For example, let's say that instead of editing the articles at the time, he made a note of the tagged articles and waited a day or two after they got deleted to make his edits. Does that still count as an undo? If yes, then does that mean he is forbidden to ever improve these articles until the IBAN expires? —howcheng {chat} 17:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've written. I asked above about the statute of limitation on Praxidacae's edits. Presumably this now just sets a precedent that any aspect of any edit ever made by Praxidicae if removed for whatever reason by Ritchie would constitute a breach of the IBAN. I somehow don't think that's what is intended here. P.S. IBANs don't expire Howcheng, and in this case I can hardly see a case for it to ever be removed given the nature of its imposition. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that when both editors are acting in good faith, common sense should apply. I mean, doesn't this go directly against our WP:SOFIXIT ethos? If Ritchie is forbidden from both rescuing these articles from immediate deletion (especially when he can do so) and asking other editors to intervene, what course of action should he have taken? —howcheng {chat} 17:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree wholly with your comments, User:Howcheng. This seems so very heavy-handed and clumsy. I find it hard to imagine that Ritchie went out of his way just to "harass" Praxidicae. Does Praxidicae have any input to this entire process? Perhaps that's forbidden by policy. I'm sure some suitable compromise could be reached. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the crux of this matter is the question of whether the edits in question arose completely by chance, as a run-of-the-mill CSD patrol; or if they were the result of Ritchie deliberately looking at Praxi's user-contributions list, spotting the O2 Victoria article there, and then choosing to edit the article on that basis. Ritchie's version of events above says that it was the former scenario, he just visited CSD as a break from article writing and then didn't even notice that Praxi was the one who'd flagged the CSD. Technically this may have been an IBAN infringement but, taken in isolation, it's hard to see how it could be construed as harassment. But PMC's note right at the top of this section says "You need to stop this behavior. Leave Praxidicae alone." That suggests that PMC believes this came about because Ritchie is still following Praxi around and represents a pattern of behaviour which is ongoing and needs to be stopped. The strong wording of PMC's statement and the relatively harsh length of the block are indicative that PMC thought this had happened deliberately. Of course, only Ritchie knows the true answer to this question, but if one assumes good faith, as we are constantly reminded we should do, and note that there doesn't seem to be any sort of pattern to this, and (correct me if I'm wrong) it's just an isolated incident, then we should default to believing his version of events.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Adding a good faith exception to IBAN feels like it would invite a lot of trouble for enforcement that our current exceptions and policy about what constitutes a violation doesn't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is not an isolated incident, and I'm getting tired of having to repeat that. This is another instance of the exact kind of repeated hovering over Prax's CSD tags that prompted the IBAN in the first place. If Ritchie had noticed Prax was the tagger when he went into the history to do the revdel and subsequently self-reverted, I'd happily believe it was a mistake. That's not what happened. I don't believe Ritchie just so happened to coincidentally pick one of Prax's CSDs at random from the CSD list and then also failed to notice she was the tagger when he went into the history to do a revdel. It beggars belief. AGF is not a suicide pact - when someone has been sanctioned for problematic behavior (and has been blocked for violating that sanction before), we don't normally trip all over ourselves trying to assume it was all just a startling coincidence when they do it again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think a lot of us are getting tired of various things. However, the page where this incident happened is in a topic area that Ritchie is particularly interested and active in. (That's the kind of thing where editor-interaction analyses can give false positives.) I don't know all the past history between these two, and I certainly could be wrong, but it isn't like he wandered into a topic area he is never active in, in order to do this. And something that just seems strange to me is that nothing he did was inconsistent with what she was asking to have done at the page. OK, he did undo the CSD tag that she placed, and I've already said that I consider that to have been a violation of the IBAN, but he then went on to fix exactly the problems that the CSD tag drew attention to. That's not what I would expect from someone who intends to interfere with the editing of someone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
And about editor interactions, I cannot help but notice that the same administrator has been behind both this block and the underlying ArbCom IBAN decision. I'm not saying that's a violation of anything, but I do think the optics sit uncomfortably with the assertions about Ritchie just happening to show up. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The IBAN was proposed to the entire Arbitration Committee via the mailing list and after significant discussion was unanimously supported by everyone who voted (leaving out Joe's recusal). I took point on the initial email to Ritchie and the subsequent noticeboard posting, but saying I was "behind" the IBAN implies that I somehow enacted it on my own against the objections of seven other arbitrators (or somehow without contacting them at all), which is inaccurate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It was proposed to the entire Arbitration Committee? I don't think that it simply proposed itself. My understanding is that you drafted it, and... it was approved by majority support: [1]. And you made it clear that you felt strongly that Ritchie was at fault in a way that Prax was not: [2]. I never said (nor, I think, implied) that you did it without consultation with the rest of the Committee. And, since I'm digging up diffs, I still think what I said here: [3]. But as I already said, you are not in violation of anything. It's just that the optics are suboptimal, particularly in the context of whether one person keeps showing up where another person has. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I drafted that particular wording, but was not the initial proposer of the IBAN. And, as I've said before, I opposed the de-sysop when Level 2 was initiated. However, I acknowledge your point about the optics and I'll step back from anything concerning Ritchie going forward. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been off-wiki for a week, but I do want to say that I appreciate your saying that, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I have some as yet unanswered questions about, at least, the optics of the block, but I really have to disagree with those who are saying that it should not be regarded as a policy violation if it improved content. Would it be OK to violate a topic ban because the edit improved content? Of course not. But I am inclined to AGF that Ritchie is telling the truth when he says that he actually did not notice who had placed the tag. This looks to me like a careless violation, rather than a mean-spirited one. But that still is a violation, and I think that Ritchie should, going forward, take a bit more care and check the last few edits before risking an unintended interaction. (The last few edits, not an archeological dig throughout page history.) And I very much hope that he will communicate just that to ArbCom, and that ArbCom will then be satisfied that the block can be lifted. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, archaeology, a.k.a "The Curse of Wikipedia". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think questions remain over whether addressing a maintenance tag relating to copyvio violates an IBAN in any sense. Where does this end? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it ends when editors who have been ordered to stop following each other around, stop following each other around. Of course copyright tags should be dealt with, but there is always someone else who can take care of it. There is an editor who is under a 1-way IBAN with me. In the past, they would show up on talk pages where I had been active, and comment in threads where I wasn't present, at the same time that I was commenting in other sections, on the same day. They didn't say "Hey Tryptofish", but I can assure you that it felt to me like they were following me on purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Well no, that's entirely dependent on whether you believe Ritchie was acting maliciously or not. If so then you should be advocating throwing the book at him. If not (as he himself says) then communication should have been the first course of action from Arb (e.g. "Hey Ritchie, did you realise ...?") not slapping a week-long block for an edit which was in every sense positive and actually not a revert of someone with whom he has an IBAN. And you fail to address the primary issue now, which is at what point does Praxidicae's edits become beyond the statute of limitations? If Ritchie removes text which Praxidicae has added a month ago, a year ago, is that an IBAN violation? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 05:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I think I've already made it very clear that I believe that he was not acting maliciously. And I have always been a strong advocate of the value of WP:BEFOREBLOCK, so I very much agree with you that it would have been better to communicate first. But I can still, simultaneously, hold those opinions as well as believing that Ritchie should not have done that. As for the question of how far back it goes, I think that what WP:IBAN says is pretty much right: it's no problem to "edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other," but they should not directly "undo each other's edits". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
He didn't "undo" anything, he addressed the content of the G11 tag. How many times must that be spelled out here? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
[4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Wrong. He addressed the tag, he didn't "undo" or "revert" the edit. I'm afraid you and the blocking Arb (who is bordering on INVOLVED it appears from above) have got this quite wrong. And then to see others doubling down and taking the chance to hit with the "harassment" nonsense, this place has gone to the dogs. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Not forgetting that other bit: [5]. Martin "Mad Muffet" evans123 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I find it highly doubtful Ritchie didn't notice, as he revision-deleted Praxidicae's edit. Unless his eyes didn't stray a millimeter from his cursor while he checked the box directly to the left of Praxidicae's name, he saw who tagged it. Vermont (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, he should have noticed it. And it's not an excuse. But humans make all kinds of strange mistakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
How true! The question is how to deal with such mistakes: go by teh rulez which demand punishment regardless (even if it's not called that name, but education or what?), or say, ignoring all rules (WP:IAR): thank you, Ritchie, for improving that article, but next time better watch out for who tagged it, and have a friend perform the act. In case you don't know, PMC: Talk before you block. How about assuming in good faith that it wasn't done on purpose, other than the purpose of improving the article?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Every day, we lose what the wrongly blocked would have given that day. And a little bit of our souls.

nb: User talk:Wehwalt#Sanddunes Sunrise

Martin said "idea" (on my talk), that gave me an idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I speak as a relatively new editor here, but... what the hell did this guy do? Expand an article? ...and get blocked for it? | abequinnfourteen 23:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor, Praxidicae, tagged a copyright-violation and promotional article for deletion. Ritchie removed the tags, revision-deleted the copyright violations, and rescued the article from deletion. That is all well and good, however Ritchie has active interaction ban (2-way) from interacting with Praxidicae due to previous issues of harassment/contributions-stalking, especially relating to deletion tags, thus making it a violation of the interaction ban. As he must have seen the username while revision-deleting the edits, if not earlier, he knew (or should have known) that responding to that tag would be a violation of the ban, at which point he should have moved on to edit another article. The block is as a consequence for violating the ban. I hope this summary helps. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: "due to previous issues of harassment/contributions-stalking, especially relating to deletion tags" This is called proof by repeated assertion. At the top of of the thread, I have explained in some detail why this is not true, and Andrew D has cited a couple of case studies to explain in detail why it is not true. However, you only need to look at the millions of people supporting Donald Trump to know that facts and detailed hard evidence do not sit comfortably with some, who would prefer to wave them away with cries of "fake news". PS: To you and Premeditated Chaos - how dare you accuse me of lying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
There were some screenshots above in this section relating to the contribs-stalking issue, and you can’t deny that this and perceived harassment was the cause of the IBAN; had there not been issues with those there would be no conflict whatsoever. Also, how can you expect me to believe that you didn’t notice who made the edit while you checked off the box immediately next to their username while revision-deleting it? I can’t accept that you, as an experienced administrator, would not even look at edits you were RDing, or even to just look at the username a centimeter or so away from the box. I apologize if you are offended that I do not believe you, but recognize how unlikely it is that you would, in good faith, entirely ignore a page’s edit history prior to making multiple admin actions on it and rewriting the page. I hope this explains why I hold my opinion. Regards, Vermont (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: where are the screenshots you mention? I haven't seen them. The only evidence of contribution-stalking that I've seen is the mention of articles Bill Homewood, Balaguer Guitars, and Vern Watts above, but those incidents all took place before the IBAN was put in place. Is there any evidence that Ritchie has been routinely combing through Praxi's contribs since the IBAN? I can see the merit in Barkeep's argument above that IBAN breaches are a bright-line, and we don't need to look at whether they were intentional or not... the block itself may well be justified per Liz's thoughtful advice below. But what has really disappointed me is the hostile rhetoric that has accompanied it, both from yourself and PMC. Don't forget that there is a real human being at the other end of the wire, and real human beings make mistakes sometimes. And in the same way that a victim of harassment feels chilled and discouraged from contributing here, the same applies to someone who's given a plausible version of events, but is not believed by those in power.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Just search for the despicably titled "harassment evidence" JPGs. ABF all the way. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see them now, thanks. I see they've been uploaded under a "fair use" tag! But again, there's no evidence of when these interactions took place. As I already noted above, Bill Homewood was before the IBAN so shouldn't be considered when deciding if there was an infringement. Were any of these events recent?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, ironic that the two "accusation" images should be speedily deleted... Reminds me of something my old cadet leader told me one day, that his career was typified by "the blind leading the blind"... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
The issue with contribs-stalking refers to pre-IBAN, as I was talking about the cause of the IBAN. I'm not aware of any issues since then save for this one, and therefore no, there is no evidence he is routinely combing through her contribs, nor do I think he is. I apologize if my comments were perceived as hostile; that was not the intention. Vermont (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
After further review, I feel like PMC's refusal to unblock Ritchie even after the multiple times that Ritchie's block has been proven dubious indicates that PMC purely has a personal reason for the refusal, without regarding evidence. | abequinnfourteen 21:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't read every message here since this morning but the solution seems obvious (and may have already been proposed) but Ritchie you simply need to look at the edit history before editing an article. I was getting complaints from editors tired of receiving CSD notices and so I now look at the category history before notifying the category creator of a speedy deletion & have ceased sending notices to those who do not want to receive them. It's an extra step & initially a hassle but now it's automatic & I don't think twice about it.

I think even those affirming the block believe that Wikipedia doesn't want to lose either of you & checking the history of a page will likely prevent these encounters from happening in the future. Just a thought. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie you simply need to look at the edit history before editing an article – Presumably that was meant ironically. It may make sense for esoterica such as category deletion but for general article editing it’s completely unrealistic. EEng 10:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it was ironic at all. It now seems that people who are IBANed are not able to edit anything previously edited by the person with which they are IBANed since the current definition of "revert" now includes just about any kind of editing which results in anything being "removed" whether its to improve an article or salvage a speedy deletion. Seems like wikilawyering and ABF at its finest. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
More accurately, one should look at the history of an article before preforming admin actions on it, especially revision deletion. Of course, asking him to check history prior to making any edit is simply unreasonable. Vermont (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It is a logical outcome of the FramBan change to how Ibans work. Perhaps we need an RFC to redefine Ibans back into something that doesn't require an Ibanned person to check the history of any page they want to edit. Aferall, for pages with thousands of edits going back ten years would be time consuming. ϢereSpielChequers 21:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ritchie, you can appeal to the community at AN, to administrators at AE, or to Arbcom directly. Do you want to submit an appeal at AN or AE? Arguing it here is a waste of time but it seems apparent that you have a reasonable appeal to make. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think at the very least, clarification of the scope of IBAN is required now. And perhaps even clarification of what "undo" and "revert" means when it's abundantly clear to a number of us that the edit for which Ritchie was blocked was absolutely neither. Lastly, we need some clarification on whether it's acceptable for Arbs and admins to start throwing around terms like "harassment" and even uploading (incorrectly) images with names like "harassment evidence" without evidence, accusing people of lying, and therefore harassing those people themselves. Some of the borderline behaviour from arbs and admins here has been nothing short of despicable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Appeal copied to AN. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_103&oldid=1073382743"