Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020

I feel bullied and harasssed by the user through continuous construed warnings and unnecessary notices on my talk page here and here and here. Four times I've now asked h to stay off my talk page, but that is ignored as excuses are found to continue to try to exert power over me there. Administrative assistance is need to determine whether or not I am being too sensitive and whether or not special arbitration matters re: the article Greta Thunberg are being abused in this case for the purpose of bullying and persecution outside the actual interests of those arbitration decisions. Some of the input reads as if I had criticized and attacked this user personally in connection with the Thunberg article and as if I (while hoping for a more NPOV there) do not respect the sensitivity of that article. None of that is real. In any case, since 2008 I've never seen anyone disregard 3 requests for someone to stay away from a user's talk page. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stand by for my request of community-imposed WP:BOOMERANG sanctions of a 24 block of SergeWoodzing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This is about repetitious reprimands on my talk page, not about the infected Greta Thunberg discussions. It now appears that they have been a device to try to get me blocked. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) You're an experienced editor. I assume you should know that generally speaking, when an editor asks you to stay away from their talk page, this should be respected except for essential notices. From what I see, this request came first and your reply was frankly unnecessary but I'll give you one acknowledgement of the request. In case the request to stay away wasn't clear, there was another here Yet despite this, only ~20 days later you posted this and then this . And to top it off, after a third request to stay away you post this ? There was absolutely no reason to. If there are problems with SergeWoodzing's editing and they're rejecting your help, you can bring a case to ANI etc. You can point to your earlier attempts to engage SergeWoodzing and the request to stay away as evidence you did your best to engage with the editor first, but couldn't because they rejected your help. Content issues etc can be dealt with in article talk pages like always. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Just noticed someone else referred to NewsAndEventsGuy here before this reply of theirs . So okay I'll put that one aside. It still was unnecessary especially given that they already had 2 requests. A better alternative was that NewsAndEventsGuy could have approached the other editor directly and explained the situation to them. Separately, SergeWoodzing should also have asked that editor to remove any reference (direct or implied) to NewsAndEventsGuy. (To be clear, it's inappropriate allow discussion of an editor on your talk page if you've asked said editor to stay away.) I would add that since NewsAndEventsGuy was not pinged, I have zero idea how they became aware they'd been referred to within about 4 minutes on SergeWoodzing's talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy should not be watching the talk page of SergeWoodzing when they've been asked to stay away. Even if they wanted to be aware of any AN//I threads opened on SergeWoodzing, this is surely not a good way to handle it. Anyway putting that all to one side, none of this justifies the other followups. Particularly not the completely unnecessary reply to the third request. Nil Einne (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

One final comment, if there are genuine problems with SergeWoodzing's editing, and frankly from what I've seen I think there is, this is even more reason why what you've done here is dumb. We should be discussing problems with SergeWoodzing's editing. Instead we're discussing your refusal to stay away from their talk page when asked. You could have avoided that simply by staying away and opening a case. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definitely deserving of receiving template:trout for being dumb, and on a regular basis. However, in this case, I'm going to plead an attempt at assertive kindness. I really really really dislike the drama boards and putting someone else through the grinder. Especially when I believe the issue is WP:CIR, as is the case here. But the cat's out of the bag, so.... here we are... I'll go back to reviewing SW's history which I thinks supports my opinion but I am still self-banned until I have my reply ready. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• You both have clear block logs. Let that sink in for a moment. Neither one of you has posted diffs showing the other damaging an article, so I'm inclined to dismiss this matter. My strong recommendation is to avoid each other. If you have a problem with the other editor, come to my talk page and let me know. Or find some other administrator. Greta Thunburg will be fine without your help. Consider unwatching that page for a few weeks if you find the happenings there stressful. NewsAndEventsGuy, you have indeed been asked four times to stop going to SergeWoodzing's talk page. Please do not post there again for any reason. Go to a third party if this limitation is being gamed. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) SergeWoodzing, it would help a great deal if you'd post diffs including of your requests so it's easier for use to see. But anyway I've posted them above now. I wouldn't oppose an immediate block of NewsAndEventsGuy for harassment since they've been clearly told to stay away from SergeWoodzing's talk page multiple times but refuse to. As I said above, they're an experienced editor and should know better. Barring that, I suggest a final warning to NewsAndEventsGuy. I've not yet seen anything to justify a boomerang. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's quite possible I do not comprehend the requirements at WP:ARBBLP#DECORUM to which we of which we are both "aware". I'm prepared to show Serge, who is site-banned from the Swedish wikipedia, habitually tells people to get lost instead of working with the DR procedures. I offered to DR earlier in Sept and was told what I could with myself. "Immediate ban"??????? In under 60 minutes without a realistic chance to explain myself? How about I just don't edit until I prep my actual reply? Thats sufficiently time consuming that it will have the same practical effect as a block. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your reply is almost definitely irrelevant to my support of a block. Whatever wrong SergeWoodzing has done, it doesn't justify your atrocious harassment. When someone asks you to stay away from their talk page, just stay the heck away. It's simple. As I said, if there are problems with SergeWoodzing requiring administrative attention, then open a case somewhere relevant. Hey in that case you even have an acceptable reason to post on their talk page to notify them. Otherwise stop annoying them on their talk page when you've been told to stay away. It helps no one. They're clearly not interested in what you're saying or taking it onboard so there's no purpose to post there. I admit I missed that you'd been pinged for the reply to the IP as per below but ultimately this doesn't change the equation much since in the end you had multiple opportunities to deal with things in a different way but persisted in unnecessarily posting on someone's talk page when asked to stay away. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If you were aware of SergeWoodzing's discussion with Domdeparis, that is the only reason I can see that would change my mind about your persistence. Although even in that case, I still would have expected you to ask them about it rather than just keep posting. Maybe there are other reasons but your initial reply didn't give me confidence. You seemed to be talking about what SergeWoodzing had done wrong, but that doesn't justify what you did wrong. (It may justify a block of SergeWoodzing, but that's a different issue.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record... I had never seen SW before meeting at the GT BLP earlier this year. As best as I recall my ONLY exposure to SW has been at that venue and our talk pages. And until your note I don't think I'd ever heard of Domdeparis. You still haven't heard my full story, which takes time to assemble, and I'm voluntarily self banning until I complete it. I thought that "CIR" applies a little bit before today's events, just from the GT page and associated discussions, but my opinion has solidified since this all seems like calling an airtanker when a cotton ball catches fire. I continue to draft a reply in my Sandbox5 if you care to peek. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

(edit conflict)::I agree that NesAndEvensGuy should stay of the other editor's page. I wouldn't support a block. SergeWoodzing's first request for him to stay off his page included an accusation of bullying that I don't think was warranted. I think he probably over-reacted to the DS alert. NewsAndEventsGuy's post to SergeWoodzing/s page yesterday was in response to a ping, which turns out to have been from an IP. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the IP ping, which was concerning. NewsAndEventsGuy, are you active on Swedish Wikipedia? If so, can you post a link showing where SergeWoodzing is banned from there? That seems like relevant context. Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The IP Ping is a random IP from out of the blue. What really happened is that en ed who has previously labeled me a bully over a content dispute went to SW's talk page and cast aspersions at me without notifying me that I was under discussion. But since I had the page watchlisted, I saw that. Full chronology of the lead up to todays drama is at top of my user subpage Sandbox5, if you want to peek. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

request linkYger (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies I missed the ping. I still don't consider this a good response especially given it was coming so hot on the heels of the previous post. Really there was little justification for the 19:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC) comment. If NewsAndEventsGuy had wanted to post something, they should have just said, 'please don't discuss me here as I'm banned' although as I said it would be far preferable to simply approach that editor directly and leave SergeWoodzing's talk page the well alone. And I still don't get why NewsAndEventsGuy even saw MartiniShaw's comment.

But even if we forgive that unnecessary post, once the IP pinged it needed to stop. Again, the best course was simply to directly approach the IP. But if NewsAndEventsGuy really felt the need to comment on SergeWoodzing's talk page they really need to simply say 'please stop pinging or discussing me since I'm banned from here' or similar rather than their comment at 09:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC). And of course, whatever we say about the other comments, there is still the 11:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC) one. There was absolutely no need for that.

I do agree that SergeWoodzing seems to have overreacted, and in fact before I looked carefully at the time stamps I was going to say that I'm not willing to fault someone leaving a DS notice even if they'd been asked to stay away from another editor's talk page. But ultimately plenty of people banning someone from their talk page have likely overreacted. We still expect these to be followed within reason.

I mean at most, one post from NewsAndEventsGuy trying to explain themselves and suggesting SergeWoodzing had overreacted may be tolerated. Not 2 along with another 2 unnecessary posts just because you were pinged or mentioned. It's clear that SergeWoodzing wasn't getting the message, just getting more and more annoyed so that helped no one. Ultimately if SergeWoodzing refuses to accept help it's their funeral. I will equally give short shrift to someone who violates our policies or guidelines and tries to complain that people didn't explain the problems to them when they didn't let them.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jehochman: the main discussion was here. His talk page where the block was placed is here. One of the reasons was violation of their 'Etiquette" policy, which is similar to our WP:CIVIL. I note that it says that those violations "affected a wide range of other users, including those that are noticeably non-confrontational". I also see him accusing others of bullying. There were also accusations of socking and using IPs, but these weren't proven. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. @Jehochman: Thanks for asking, but I do not speak Swedish. However, when SergeWoozing came to the EngWikipedia, (s)he chose to edit the same content here. Naturally the controversy followed. Sample 2016 discussion It's long and it may have a happy ending overall but that story starts in fire and - the part I care about here - SergeWoozing told the ed who was reaching out "Please do not reply". I am drafting in my Sandbox5 if anyone wants to peek. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In reference to "DR" as mentioned by this user above and elswehere for my benefit, I had no dispute with any editor at that time, so I felt the "DR" reference was moot at best and could be perceived it as bullying at worst. The part about a blocked editor did its part. I may have over-reacted, yes, and I'm sorry if so. I thought Dispute Resolution had to involve an actual dispute with someone.

Re: Swedish Wikipedia, it's an old and long and very unpleasant story which I would hope does not have to spill over into this page. If the fact that I am blocked elsewhere hinders me from complaining about what goes on on my talk page, that would be something I didn't think of. I had several detractors there and several supporters back then. I think everyone, including me, is content with the fact that I am no longer active there. Nothing even close to what was complained about there, whether rightly (as per my detractors) or wrongly (as per my supporters) has ever occurred here. It is beyond what I can comprehend that a long discussion about Prince Bernadotte, where things have been satisfactorily stable for quite some time, can be relevant to my complaint about disregard of my multiple requests not to post on my talk page. I "came to" English Wikipedia long before that discussion, and what I edit is what I can find reliable sources for on subjects where I might know how to find them. (I also remove unsourced material and revert quite a bit of spam and mischief.)

I do not intend to investigate the work of this user to try to find other things that might turn adminisrators against h. Several editors do not agree with h about the Thunberg article, but my complaint here is about my talk page, not the user's other work.

As noted above, there are many other ways to deal with what somenone might percieve as a personal dispute than posting repeatedly on someone's talk page where one has been asked to stay away. I admit I have asked a few users before to stay away in the past, since we got nowhere and I felt their entries on my talk page were more disconcerting than constructive. I though that was my right.

Can a user of long standing who has had a few animated discussions not procect h own talk page because of those discussions? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You do seem to have a tendency to tell people to stay away from your talk page a lot. This is rarely a good sign. While people should generally respect such requests, if you're refusing to accept help and refusing to take on board what people are telling you, it's likely to be your funeral.

If someone brings a case and demonstrates problematic behaviour on your part, it's going to be difficult to argue to give you another chance since you weren't properly warned or informed over the problems in your editing since you banned anyone who tried. I suggest you stop taking everything so personally.

And I just noticed your response to Domdeparis at 19:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC) which is incredibly confusing. Are you actually banning editors from your talk page or not? You cannot ban editors then simultaneously claim "I do not refuse to talk to you or anyone else here or anywhere about anything relevant". If you're banning editors then you are refusing.

You may be allowed to, within reason, although as said, this may also cause more grief for you then benefit if you're not accepting help. But whatever your choice, please own up to what you're doing and don't leave conflicting messages. Also, if you have banned anyone, remember that it's not acceptable to discuss them on your talk page or allow others to do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I will keep your advice in mind not to ask anyone to stay away from my talk page if it is obvious to me that they are trying to help Wikipedia. That is not the case here in total, I feel, after having looked at it all again with every measure of fairness and good faith I am able to muster.

I will also remove any discussion started on my talk page about anyone I have asked to stay away. I fully agree that nothing else would be appropriate.

For anyone interested in Swedish Wikipedia, as mentioned above, I probably should have added that there is no dispute resolution there, nothing that resembles third opinion assistance (which is very helpful), no arbitration and no rules against outing. On behalf of 4-5 of us who have been blocked there (after a lot of good work also having been done), I'd like to say that, as far as I've seen, we haven't found it possible to have our own views on article content and reliable sourcing judged in such constructive avenues as one can pursue - usually with great success - here. I have never expected to be right in every instance, only to be treated with the same respect and equinimity (having inherited a doube dose of quick temper from my father and my mother's mother) that I try very hard at the outset to use when dealing with everyone else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: SergeWoodzing isn't the only one to get harassed and bullied. User NewsAndEventsGuy threw unnecessary notices on my talk page too even though I have done nothing wrong! This is a form of bullying and needs to stop. This user also unilaterally removed my comments from the Talk Page of Greta Thunberg, which then I brought to the admin's attention . The admins disagreed with the removal of my comments in Greta's Talk Page and soothed my worries and reassured me that I am not being persuaded. I can't help but ignore this and let it go, however seeing that this incident wasn't limited only to me, but happened to other editors as well, made me come here and report my case as well. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

At least as far as the no-fault strictly FYI DS Alert template goes, I participated in the 2013/2014 discussion that intentionally de-fanged the prior "badge of shame" system with this no-fault/nothing-implied FYI alert system. SilentResident appears to be reacting as though we still did the "badge of shame" approach, even though it has moved to a FYI-only template for the last five years. At the time of the overhaul, I argued that the best way to de-stigmatize the system was to have a bot auto-deliver them to everyone in these hot topic areas. Instead I abundantly pass them out to many people manually, and to try to show they are FYI and not badge of shame I often issue them to myself. SilentResident is upset over specific actions at the article and talk page too. I still haven't tried to load those events in my brain and will try to do so soon. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe editors need to be more discreet in throwing ARBMAC warnings around, especially when there were no actions to justify them. You threw an ARBMAC Warning at me for... what? And your actions to delete other people's comments in Greta's talk page found the admins disagreeing with. You really need stop throwing warnings at other editors/deleting their talk page comments. If you are incapable of seeing the wrong of your actions, no wonder why I am upset! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

(A) Since you're not hearing me, someone else can explain the DS Alert to you

(B) You left out the key thread, where we already discussed your beef with me. Please correct this brief summary if you disagree.... The venue is the BLP of Greta Thunberg ("GT"), a minor. You cited a Greek-language source that someone else's company was greenwashing but apparently made no claim that GT herself was greenwashing. I pointed you to to the archived thread where page editors had exhaustively debated all this. Our discussion closed with your promise to review the archived thread. Since I heard nothing from you until today, I assumed the matter was resolved to your satisfaction. WP:ARBBLP#Decorum requires an assumption of good faith. Where I saw a BLP rumor violation and off topic comment about actions by a 3rd party, I can admit that others might not see it that way. So maybe it's kinda borderline, raising the question how we should interpret what I did? One approach is to ignore DECORUM, assume bad faith, and thump me for bullying. The better way, in line with DECORUM, would be for you to produce RSs that directly connect the minor-aged young woman to the greenwashing allegations you wanted to add to her BLP article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It may seem different to you than for others, and this only shows why it is just as bad to act like how you did! If you do believe a query isn't worth it or relevant to the article or its subjects, you can simply reply accordingly, right bellow their query, so that the editors can know and be given the chance to defend or make the necessary clarifications, and this will be appreciated. But if you do it the other way instead, i.e. by touching / removing others' queries from Talk Pages just like how you have done with mine, you will regret it. I don't want to sound harsh towards you, but your actions were very indimitating for me and have upset me, for which i have seen no apology at all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This is pretty simple.... If you got sources to comply with BLP, argue sources. If you lack such sources, demand apologies from the person who says so. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved administrator take a look at the behavior of User:Jamie Tubers at User talk:Haylad? He is casting aspersions at various administrators, saying that they are part of a cabal dedicated to punishing and keeping a user blocked. When I asked him to confirm whether he was accusing me of being part of this cabal, he said "I wasn't accusing you in particular. But yea, I see signs of some group revenge action ..." So, apparently, I'm not being accused "in particular", but, yes, there's evidence. Simply because I asked a user a question politely and thanked him for his answer. Someone then pinged me at the talk page, asking me to return to the conversation and review the unblock request. I asked people to stop pinging me from that page and declined to get further involved the drama. In response, Jamie Tubers pinged me again, and doubled down on the bad faith accusations of a cabal. Can someone please block Jamie Tubers or at least give him a one-way interaction ban against me? I don't want to deal with this person. I am a volunteer, and I don't like the idea of being browbeaten into responding to an unblock request. If I think a disruptive editor is making my life difficult, I shouldn't have to deal with repeated demands from that person that I take an admin action. This is in addition to the clear personal attacks that Jamie Tubers is making against TonyBallioni and Huon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the cabal also supposedly includes TheSandDoctor and Ponyo. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Considering that yesterday I was told I was incompetent and told to hand in the mop & resign, I consider editors complaining about admins to be an unfortunate part of the job. Unless he is coming to your user talk page, I think you should just take Haylad's talk page off your watchlist, if it was on yours. Log off and do something enjoyable for the rest of the day/night. Let someone else review that unblock request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The page is not on my watchlist. That's the whole point. I can't do what you said, because people are pinging me from that page and demanding that I return to it! And, yes, it has started to spill over into my user talk page, though that request is very polite and reasonable. So, no, I can't just ignore this drama. It is following me around on Wikipedia, and I'm getting pinged by random people when I try to ignore it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Treating it as “just part of the job” is the reason people think it’s acceptable and why we have so many admins who either burn out or completely stay away from the difficult areas where they are needed most. This conduct was unacceptable, especially from a member of the Ombudsman Commission, who should know better. I’m not sure if a block is needed now, but at the very least he should be given a formal warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I was the blocking admin. I believe that it was a "good" block within policy, however, I will support an uninvolved administrator's judgement of this case. I cannot review it myself as I consider myself involved and am apparently part of the "cartel" supposedly conspiring against this user, as it was stated/by implication. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  I suppose the unblock cartel cabal is one of those double-secret things we don't talk about. Anyway, I've expressed an intention on the talk page to independently review the unblock request. Hopefully this will reduce the pings, or at least redirect them to me, hopefully negating any need for any other actions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm obviously involved, but Jamie Tubers' behaviour on that page is beyond the pale. Pinging someone right after they asked not to be pinged on that page is harassment, and Jamie Tubers should know better. That's not even taking into account all the other WP:NPA violations. I'm of a mind that we should treat those just like other violations of policy instead of arguing that there are policies that just aren't worth enforcing if it's an experienced editor breaking them. Would we be similarly lenient if we had an experienced editor who would every now and then violate WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP in the same way? Huon (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• IMO pinging someone when they've told you to stop is not that different from coming to someone's talk page when they've asked you to stay away. Jamie Tubers really needs to cut that out and if they don't we can force them to by blocking. While editors can turn off notifications, they shouldn't have to just because someone refuses to stop pinging when they've been asked not to. (Note that I treat pinging different from simply mentioning someone since that can get complicated.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  Should clarify that I'm not saying the rants were okay but I also agree with Liz that regardless of whether we should, we tend to accept some minor abuse and rants over administrators and so it's less clear whether this has clearly crossed that line. One additional factor here is that I think it's clear Jamie Tubers' actions are harming not helping Haylad. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That Haylad was unhappy about the block and the talk page conversation is indeed expected, and I haven't complained that he describes me in such terms as "unjust" or "unfair" or accuses me of systematic bias against African editors (based on no evidence whatsoever, of course). That is the kind of daily abuse that comes with being an administrator. Jamie Tubers doesn't have that excuse, and the last time I checked, WP:NPA doesn't have an exception that says admins are fair game. Huon (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• First of all, I haven't made any personal attacks at you. That is very obvious from my interactions with you. Second of all, your exact phrase on the talk page was: "I'm not really interested in answering pings on this talk page any more". I have no idea how that translates to "No one should ping me anymore". With that said, I actually pinged you to reply you, simply because you DIRECTLY accused me of influencing your actions, and I had to respond to that. Seriously, I am not interested in having to deal with you either. Canvassing for me to get blocked because I responded to your accusations is a reach....and if admins here actually obliged you... Oh well... I wouldn't be exactly surprised. That would make me the next victim, hey.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• You seem to have a decent understanding of English and are also a highly experienced wikipedian. So I don't see how you can fail to interpret "I'm not really interested in answering pings on this talk page any more" as having the clear implication "do not ping me on this talk page any more". Replying to someone is complicated, and by itself I'm not willing to fault you on that but there was absolutely zero reason to ping someone who had said they did not want to receive pings/did not want to answers ping. Also AFAICT, no one has explicitly said you made personal attacks against NinjaRobotPirate although you did make that questionable "wasn't accusing you in particular. But" comment. People have said you made personal attacks against Huon and TonyBallioni. We can deal with multiple different actions by you against different users here. There's no reason why they need to be restricted to your actions against one editor. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there are actually many varieties of English across the world. Where I come from; when people express that they are not interested in answering calls, it means that they want to snub other people from their own end (i.e literally not responding to the calls). It's not considered a request for other people to stop making calls to them.. But then again; it's also ironic to tell someone not to ping you, but you then lay accusations on them in the same sentence.

I didn't make personal attacks on those admins either. I made observations on the way they handled the case. If I found behaviours of admins to be questionable, I am allowed to state it and of course back it up with reasons. I did exactly that on the block talkpage. These admins never gave reasons to why they continually shifted goalposts of the Block reasons (most of which were actually unfounded). And all of that drama happened just because a user created a page which got speedily deleted....and then the user was bold enough to ask for Deletion review and got the deletion overturned. Lo and behold....the admins decided to open a full SPI case on the user and blocked him! - wrongly! If this series of actions were done by regular editors, it would pass as stalking.

I have seen too many cases of administrators behaving this way and it doesn't help the encyclopaedia! Most especially, when you do it to new editors. I dare say, if I wasn't involved in the discussion, these admins would only wear out the user and not unblock him at the end of the day. I have seen this play out over and over. The admins just assume the worst faith (as they tried to do on the Haylad issue), without any concrete evidence.. So, miss me with "Your involvement wasn't helpful". Before I got involved, They declined his unblock request TWICE! He didn't say anything new on the third unblock request, which got him unblocked....*after my involvement*. So.......yea. I can only hope that User:Haylad is not being closely monitored to be trapped into another block. Because, well....it often plays out this way.

We wonder why the number of active editors keeps dropping on Wikipedia, but we don't see that we do have a group of overtly sensitive administrators who do not want their authorities questioned....but ironically feel it is pretty cool to block people without basis, and even when the user tries his best to prove his innocence, they just keep coming up with other petty accusations, instead of just accepting they made an initial wrong judgement and even apologise for it.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jamie Tubers: You have had your say. Please do not contact or ping NinjaRobotPirate again in relation to this matter, and stop referring to them. Continuing after the issue has been aired at ANI would indicate a determination to attack another editor, and that may very well lead to a block. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• I never contacted them. A ping will obviously will not happen again, since they've made their actual request clear on this ANI. I'm not sure what you mean by "stop referring to them", but while this case is still open, there might be valid reasons to refer to them within the context of this issue. So that might not work out.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)