Editing Eurovision Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section)

== Homophobic hatred by ~2026-13552-25 ==
{{atopr
| status = Moved to AARV

| result = {{NAC}} The TA was blocked 2 weeks ago and discussion has moved on to whether or not the block was appropriate. AP 499D25 has brought that question to [[WP:AARV#2 March 2026 block by The Blade of the Northern Lights|AARV]]; further comments should take place there. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">[[User:Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: DarkGreen">md</span>]][[User talk:Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: Indigo">m.b</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Mdm.Bla|<span style="color: Maroon">la</span>]]</span> 14:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
}}

* {{userlinks|~2026-13552-25}} 

This user barely made two edits. Their first one to [[Political positions of Javier Milei]] contains [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1341281122 this edit summary] regarding Milei's remarks about [[William and Zachary Zulock]]. I believe that it warrants a "NONAZIS" but if not, I humbly ask you to consider that someone who agrees with such a comparison between a crime and gay men does not belong here. [[User:CoryGlee|<span style="color:fuchsia;">CoryGlee</span>]] 16:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

:(Non-admin comment) I agree. They also seem to have a skewed political position on arab-israel matters, in favor of Israel. It certainly warrants a block. [[User:TheClocksAlwaysTurn|TheClocksAlwaysTurn]] ([[User talk:TheClocksAlwaysTurn|The Clockworks]]) ([[Special:Contributions/TheClocksAlwaysTurn|contribs]]) 17:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::Done. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 20:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::No personal offense intended, TBOTN, but that feels like a pretty slap-dash response.  I share the OP's analysis that the edit summary is suggestive of a bigoted and ignorant world view, but nothing in the edit towards the forward facing content itself was disruptive or against policy--the edit was entirely focused on punctuation which did not change the framing of the content.  Despite a perennial inability of ANI complainants to accept the fact, [[WP:NONAZIS]] is an essay, which the community has consistently declined to adopt as policy.  In other words, having social views which depart from the norms of our typical editor is not in itself grounds for sanction.  One could argue that repeatedly making polemical edit summaries like the one involved here could eventually rise to the level of disruption, but surely an indef for the first such summary, without any effort at outreach or attempt to educate on project norms is out of proportion to the need here. {{pb}}And look, I'm not even particularly concerned about this user's editorial rights being preserved; I'm as skeptical as the OP that they are [[WP:HERE]] for proper purposes or can be converted to a useful contributor.  Rather, this is more about the health of our own processes and keeping our community from developing a propensity for knee-jerk responses and walled garden mentalities regardign controversial topics, where we flippantly and lightly excise editors for having views contrary to our personal beliefs. I just feel that something more is called for here.''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 21:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I have doubts about [[WP:NONAZIS]], on the grounds that we shouldn't act as the thought police, but when it comes to actions, such as edit summaries, I think something should be done. I, a straight man, feel safer knowing that this user is not editing. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I get it, and I also won't lose any sleep over the absence of this editor. But I remain concerned about the principle.  One edit summary suggestive of bias is very weak tea for justifying an indef, imo. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 01:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::The edit summary said all I needed to know, this is clearly someone with an ax to grind without any intention of actually being constructive. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 21:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::In all likelihood, yes.  But we typically don't indef editors based purely on our suspicions that their personal views are likely to prevent them from contributing in good faith, before substantial disruption actually takes place.  Believe me, as someone with some skin in the game when it comes to the form of bigotry implied here, I am not excited to be fighting on this hill for this particular editor. But blocks for people whom we anticipate to be problem editors merely based on their expressed views are a bridge too far to me.  I honestly don't believe anyone would have blocked the TA (and probably no one would have even brought this edit to ANI for review in the first place) had the edit summary said "Milei was wrong", even though that would have been equally as suggestive of a potentially WP:NOTHERE POV as the actual edit summary, under relevant policy.{{pb}} And I think that should concern us, even if every one of us here finds the "Milei was right" comment to be indicative of bigotry, as a matter of calling a spade for a spade. I get the impulse to say "Let's not get caught up in a [[WP:BURO]] debate over someone that is most likely here to advance a non-encyclopedic agenda," but indefs are not light sanctions and are not meant to be first-line responses before we even make an attempt at explaining principle guidelines and give the user a chance to demonstrate that they will adjust better than we suspect they can. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 01:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Astonishing that you think this is worth your (or anyone else's) time. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-92659-0|&#126;2026-92659-0]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-92659-0|talk]]) 01:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Well, perhaps my experience with the project's systems suggests larger longterm concerns at stake here than one (probably NOTHERE) user's editing privileges, which may not be immediately apparent to you. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 02:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Hey, {{u|Snow Rise}}, I did not request an indef block. That was the administrator's decision which goes beyond my knowledge as to what sanction is appropriate for these cases. As for you pointing out to {{tq|...no one would have even brought this edit to ANI}} if it said that Milei was wrong is factually inaccurate. It was not based on a political position but on a simple crime bias POV. If the TA had inserted a "Milei was wrong" edit summary, that would have pointed to a bias, yes. However, and conversely, a "Milei was right" is not an inoffensive political position. It agrees with the discredited hateful rhetoric that gay men are all Zulocks, as Milei kind of implied. 
::::::::Again, I have no knowledge as to whether this warranted an indef block. [[User:CoryGlee|<span style="color:fuchsia;">CoryGlee</span>]] 03:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Enough. Just stop. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-13679-38|&#126;2026-13679-38]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-13679-38|talk]]) 03:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Maybe it's hypocritical of me to say this,  not being an administrator myself, but this is a really silly way for a temp account to be talking on policy matters. Not saying that I'm implying anything, but maybe a checkuser could see if something's happening here?  ([[User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast|Talk]]) [[User:Phlogiston Enthusiast|<span style="color: orange">PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST</span>]] 03:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I see you are fairly new here. A word of advice: don’t throw around suggestions of involving checkusers lightly. If you have actual evidence that requires a check by checkusers, take it to [[WP:SPI]]. — [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 04:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Gotcha, thanks.  ([[User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast|Talk]]) [[User:Phlogiston Enthusiast|<span style="color: orange">PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST</span>]] 12:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Well put. I agree with you here.  ([[User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast|Talk]]) [[User:Phlogiston Enthusiast|<span style="color: orange">PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST</span>]] 03:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'm inclined to agree. I know I'm new myself, but based on what I've seen here there are plenty of editors who've caused long term problems that are still given ample [[WP:ROPE]] with mild sanctions in the hopes that they ARE in fact [[WP:HERE]] and only have issues with a certain topic, other user, etc. As distasteful as I find this user's apparent personal beliefs, indef over a single edit summary feels disproportionately harsh. I don't believe their grand total of two minor edits proves they're [[WP:NOTHERE]], especially when the second one appears to be a correct reversion of a problematic edit. Do we really want to set a precedent of [[WP:BITE]]ing newbies with an indef for their very first edit? [[User:ChompyTheGogoat|ChompyTheGogoat]] ([[User talk:ChompyTheGogoat|talk]]) 05:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Seconding this. They might not be one of our most constructive editors, but an indef for a single edit summary, even if very distasteful, is an overreaction in my opinion. If they're the kind of person described in [[WP:NONAZIS]], we'll find it soon enough, but we shouldn't block over what might happen.{{pb}}As any lawyer will tell you, defending people who are unjustly sanctioned includes defending people whose behavior you find morally repugnant, because if they're not given fair protection, no one is. [[WP:NOTCOURT|Wikipedia isn't a courtroom]], but I believe this same principle applies here. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 11:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I hate +1 edits, but...+1.
:::::::I imagine that I would not be very happy with this editor after having a discussion about the underlying philosophical issues, but this is more mission creep. We shouldn't tolerate actual disruptive hate, but we ''do'' need to actually be ''fair''. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 11:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Frankly this whole thread kind of demonstrates one way in which [[WP:HATEISDISRUPTIVE]]. One editor made one hateful comment and this was the result. If this isn't disruption I'm not sure what counts. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I've never been a great fan of of NONAZIS or HID myself as I've mentioned before although never cared enough to debate it much. As I've said before, I think we should have a very low tolerance for anything affecting the encyclopaedia proper that seems to come from such views, but talk page comments and even edit summaries should receive more tolerance. I think it's fine to make it clear to editors they need to cut it out, but we don't have to blocked them so soon. That said, since this involves a TA I feel this particular case is much more meh. I mean technically yes it means any future edits from whoever is behind the TA is block evasion but practically no one is likely to notice unless they repeat that nonsense. More significantly, it's far more difficult to establish they're actually here to build an encyclopaedia as a TA. So IMO there's less reason to be fussed over a perhaps too soon indefinite block. As for Simonm223's point, well the alternative view is that if we'd just given the editor a clear warning they need to cut it out and closed this thread, there would be no thread to complain about. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Honestly I don't disagree with you about the tactics of dealing with hate from a TA at all. Tell them to cut it out, hat talk page threads, it's probably more effective than playing blocked-IP-whackamole. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Yeah, I'm more concerned with the example it sets than this particular TA. I agree that hatting and ignoring ''mildly'' disruptive content from TAs is probably the best route, because there seem to be plenty who just want attention. Shut them down and move on. [[User:ChompyTheGogoat|ChompyTheGogoat]] ([[User talk:ChompyTheGogoat|talk]]) 20:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I can't deny there is some merit to your reasoning that the TA context makes for a meaningful distinction with regard to the longterm implications of sanctions.  Still, in terms of shutting down communication and shutting that editor out of the community for most intents and purposes, it's a pretty severe penalty. And I think it's worth asking the question whether that one, non-content-related action justifies that response, as a result of many of us (myself most undoubtedly included) finding their apparent stance on a certain social issue to be objectionable.  We do, afterall, have a block policy that at a minimum needs to be respected.  When I look at [[WP:WHYBLOCK]] or even [[WP:DBLOCK]], I don't think I see a strong link between the current situation and any of the circumstances described there for when a block is appropriate, aside from the vaguest and most speculative suggestion that this user was innately set to be disruptive.{{pb}} I do believe reasonable minds can differ on the right pragmatic call here.  But I'd like to observe that in addition to scope and policy creep, process decline belongs on the list of things which large collaborative projects have to regularly address.  We have still not as a community fully settled upon the implications for application of various measures in the new TA scheme.  My own position I think is that if we're going to start abbreviating process and abrogating requirements of the blocking policy, that's probably something that should be authorized by community discussion and augmentation of the language in said policy, rather than ad hoc at ANI.{{pb}}  At the same time, I fully recognize that the editor we are currently discussing doesn't represent the most appealing case for justifying the effort.  Fair enough to anyone who feels that way: at the risk of sounding like a broken record, you can count me in that group.  I still worry about the precedent itself though.  To my eye, this isn't about that particular TA.  It's about how reflexive we are willing to be, in our current circumstances, to the act of casting someone out of the community at the first sign of maybe holding to views which the majority find to be somewhere between concerning and amoral, before an actual and persistent pattern of disruption has occurred and before we have the kind of context for their objectives, beliefs and behaviours that can only come from outreach. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 04:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)    
:::::::::::Hey, for once my newness comes in handy! Since I'm still learning about these policies and seeing how they're enforced. Fresh eyes so to speak. TAs grant an extra degree of anonymity above and beyond that of a pseudonym screenname or even static IP, and from what I've seen - taking into consideration that I have no knowledge of "behind the scenes" events from IP days - it seems to encourage socking and disruption, so I do think developing guidelines with more restrictions for them might be prudent. Like perhaps not jumping into moderation disputes to make a single unconstructive comment? But as you say, that shouldn't be used as justification for policy creep when no such guidelines exist. This looks like a kneejerk response that probably would not have been applied to a registered user - especially one with a constructive history, but even a registered newbie would usually be given more leeway per [[WP:BITE]].
:::::::::::<br>
:::::::::::Technical question - since IPs ARE still logged and just not visible without the right credentials, is there some reason for using TAs that can just be flushed with the cache as opposed to assigning a permanent anonymized string to an IP, so their history is still linked? I assume in the past there were cases of shared external IPs and a protocol for handling them. [[User:ChompyTheGogoat|ChompyTheGogoat]] ([[User talk:ChompyTheGogoat|talk]]) 06:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::I am not super familiar with the discussions which led the adoption of the TA scheme, but I'd speculate that the idea of having a 1:1 relationship between each IP and a single anonymized string was found to be less practical as it could lead to editors who don't understand the technical aspects of TAs to treat them as essentially the same as registered accounts, treating all content arising from that anonymized string as probably coming from the same user, which would rarely be the case.  I think the idea of having those contributions divied up through a local machine certification would also result in increased transparency for most forms of disruption: while you are correct in observing that the end-user can thwart that process through flushing their local cache, most bad actors don't have even that low level of technical acumen, so the TA scheme actually provides increased distinction between edits resulting from the same public IP that were absent under the old system, for a majority of cases, if you follow my meaning. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 02:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC) 
:::::::::::::{{tq|While you are correct in observing that the end-user can thwart that process through flushing their local cache, most bad actors don't have even that low level of technical acumen}} 
:::::::::::::I won't even attempt to define "most" here, but I think the rampant sock activity proves there are plenty who do. Or use multiple devices, privacy mode, etc. Enough to be a problem. As far as {{tq|editors who don't understand the technical aspects of TAs to treat them as essentially the same as registered accounts}} how is it any different than people who didn't understand IPs? I'm not proposing using a pseudo-username, but something like a randomly generated alphanumeric string. The same functionality as the IP system but just masking the numbers so they can't be geolocated. I don't think assuming users are ignorant luddites is an appropriate basis for policy development. We expect editors to familiarize themselves with countless guidelines in order to make well structured and constructive edits - I don't think asking them to read a single page explaining the new format would be too much to ask. [[User:ChompyTheGogoat|ChompyTheGogoat]] ([[User talk:ChompyTheGogoat|talk]]) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::TAs have been forced through for ''legal'' reasons (GDPR, etc.) There have been lengthy discussions over this which you can see if you look through the [[WP:CENT]] archives. There has been great resistance and WMF is trying to convince us that this won't be that bad. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-68406-1|&#126;2026-68406-1]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-68406-1|talk]]) 04:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I realize that they had to move away from visible IPs for legal reasons, I'm just not convinced that the way it was implemented is a good choice. They could even have done something that would include both the generated IP substitute ''as well as'' a session ID. I think the current method is going to continue to cause issues and will need to be readdressed sooner or later. [[User:ChompyTheGogoat|ChompyTheGogoat]] ([[User talk:ChompyTheGogoat|talk]]) 04:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't think "this is a big deal because we overreacted about it being a big deal" is all that convincing. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 14:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm really disappointed by all the people questioning this block. It takes zero effort to refrain from broadcasting one's bigotry to the world. And the line must be drawn somewhere, right? If in an edit summary someone said "Hitler was right about the Jews" I don't think anyone would hesitate about a block. Why is "Milei is right to call trans people pedophiles" a statement that deserves any leeway at all? [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 19:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Nobody is claiming what they said wasn't awful. The issue is that if people are banned instantaneously without a CBAN or anything first, it could become a slippery slope.  ([[User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast|Talk]]) [[User:Phlogiston Enthusiast|<span style="color: orange">PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST</span>]] 19:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Evicting the intolerant with speed and extreme prejudice is [[Paradox of tolerance|necessary]] to maintain a tolerant environment. The fact that {{tq|nobody is claiming what they said wasn't awful}} is exactly evidence that there is no 'slippery slope' here. This is not an edge case or grey area, it was a clear cut broadcast of bigotry which was acted on with appropriate haste. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 20:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::The issue is that there needs to be a line, and right now there isn't one. If there is, it's obviously difficult enough to tell that it has the same outcome as not having a line. WP:NONAZIS is an essay, and not a policy, and the lack of a policy in this type of situation is distressing.  ([[User talk:Phlogiston Enthusiast|Talk]]) [[User:Phlogiston Enthusiast|<span style="color: orange">PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST</span>]] 20:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Consensus is king and PAGs should be descriptive, not prescriptive. If the community norm is (as it should be and seems to be) to promptly block those who display unabashed bigotry, then the only thing stopping NONAZIS, NORACISTS, NOQUEERPHOBIA etc from being a policy/guideline rather than an essay is that nobody's taken the effort to write up the proposal and run the RfC. [[User:Athanelar|Athanelar]] ([[User talk:Athanelar|talk]]) 20:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm sorry, I appreciate your desire for a more bullish policy in this area, but that's just not remotely how the consensus process works here when it comes to guidelines, behavioural or otherwise. "I am pretty sure that most people agree with me about this essay and therefor we should treat it like community consensus" is not a valid argument for bootstrapping said essay into an effective guideline.   See [[WP:PAG#Role]], [[WP:PGLIFE]], and [[WP:PROPOSAL]]; a certain line of thought or formal procedure gets adopted as formal community consensus through a meticulous process of vetting in centralized community discussion, not through an ad-hoc vibes check, to use the parlance of the day, when someone wants to treat an essay like policy in a particular situation--no offense intended.  {{pb}}Further, and of particular relevance to your position, there have in fact been many community discussions in recent years about the prospect of NONAZI's being adopted as policy, and to-date the community has always declined to.   Although the community has a strong incentive in discouraging bad actors who come here with a bigoted agenda, the community as a whole finds the particular verbiage and approach of NONAZIS to be unwieldy and impractical as a prospective guideline.  Even though large portions of the individual statements found in NONAZIS can (in my personal opinion anyway) reasonably be described as common sense, the community still has deep reservations about the knock-on effects of requiring individual editors to conform to purity tests on this or that personal value or belief. For better or worse, the community feels that divisive commentary--from controversial statements all the way up to outright hate speech--are effectively addressed through our existing [[WP:DISRUPTION]] model, and that making NONAZIs policy would only confuse and inflame discussion of these issues.  That could always change in the future, but to the extent that you believe NONAZIs is not a PAG merely because no one ever pushed for it to become one, I'd like to assure you, that is not the case. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 02:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I've started a discussion at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)|Make_Wikipedia:No_Nazis_a_policy?}}. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 03:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::{{ec}} I don't think you said what meant there, {{u|Phlogiston Enthusiast}}. A [[WP:CBAN|CBAN]] is a ban, the most difficult type of ban to get lifted. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Athanelar. Wikipedia has had a big problem with POV bigots lately (racists/sexists/transphobes who are emboldened) and if anything the site needs to do a much better job at weeding them out. These kind of biases are fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-14322-93|&#126;2026-14322-93]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-14322-93|talk]]) 23:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
:Well now we should be asking whether the block by The Blade of the Northern Lights is appropriate. The discussion here did not seem to come to a conclusion on that. Personally I think a block is an over reaction. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 00:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
::I agree. It is an extreme over-reaction. [[User:Bravelake|Bravelake]] ([[User talk:Bravelake|talk]]) 08:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::In the final analysis, I think I have to agree.  I appreciate that there is a desire among some in our community to curate membership in our volunteer pool such that everyone permitted to contribute have all adopted certain uniform beliefs and values, beyond the obvious express dedication to the free knowledge movement and educational purpose of the encyclopedia that forms the basis of our prject.  But, per many of the responses in the now [[WP:SNOW]]-closed discussion linked above, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the community feels that is not a feasible prerequisite for editorial privileges, nor even even necessarily a desirable or healthy objective for the project. {{pb}} More specific to this particular case, what I keep coming back to is the fact that blocks are meant to be [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]], not punitive.  Even were action warranted here, I'd question why an indef was necessary when a TBAN or other more tailored sanction would prevent engagement with GENSEX topic matter.  If I am honest, even if the community had been given the opportunity to decide this matter, I'm very dubious that it would have found that the one edit summary for which this user was blocked warrants any kind of sanction, especially given the complete lack of effort at engagement with the user before hand.  But after mulling over the consequences the last week, I'm certain at this point that I am not comfortable with unilateral indefs for users for no other reason than that they hold divisive beliefs.  {{pb}}At least, not in this particular circumstance.  There would certainly be situations where more prolonged, targeted, and/or vexatious descriptions of a user's deprecatory beliefs would trigger for me a presumption that the user in question was ''per se'' [[wp:disruptive]].   But it would have to be something much more substantial than this user's one edit summary.  The brand of nonsense that they appear to believe in is a particularly odious belief to me.  And despite going to the mat on this issue, I won't lie: I am doubtful that this user will transform into a longterm net positive even if the block is lifted. But my overall position remains that we are dealing with issues that are broader and vastly more important to the longterm viability of the project than just this one user's freedom to edit over the immediate term.  Some principles are worth protecting even when you have to hold your nose while doing it. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 11:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::"beyond the obvious express dedication to the free knowledge movement and educational purpose of the encyclopedia that forms the basis of our prject."
:::I hope these are not required for participation. I do not believe in Wikipedia or its mission, but I did not think that this would preclude me from editing. [[User:Pipoin|Pipoin]] ([[User talk:Pipoin|talk]]) 07:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::Seems totally appropriate to me. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-92659-0|&#126;2026-92659-0]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-92659-0|talk]]) 12:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::This was a bad block. The reason states 'clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia' but the only two edits are a proper application of [[MOS:QUOTE]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1341281122] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elly_Schlein&diff=next&oldid=1341078788], which lacks an edit summary but I'd consider it a good revert as the stable/previous version was better. The Blade of the Northern Lights even reverted the edit with rollback without an edit summary, which goes against [[WP:ROLLBACKUSE]]. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 00:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::The user said that LGBTQ+ individuals are pedophiles. You think they deserve to stay? [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-16275-74|&#126;2026-16275-74]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-16275-74|talk]]) 22:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:Speaking of which, due to continued edit-warring at [[Elly Schlein]] over her position on Israel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elly_Schlein&diff=1343178279&oldid=1343081114], I have filed an [[WP:RPP|RPP]] request. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 17:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''[[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection|Extended confirmed protected]]'''&#32;'''indefinitely'''.<!-- Template:RFPP#excp --> '''[[User:Dr_vulpes|<span style="background:#4B0082; color:white;">Dr vulpes</span>]]''' [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|(Talk)]] 20:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

* So the editor was editing the sentence of {{tq|Milei argued there was an "LGBT agenda", saying, "In its most extreme version, gender ideology simply and plainly constitutes child abuse. They're pedophiles"}} and the editor included the edit summary of {{tq|Milei is right}}. Yep, seems like really clear [[WP:NOTHERE]] territory. Good block. Kinda gross some of you above are defending it as not that bad. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 22:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

::{{tq|"Kinda gross some of you above are defending it as not that bad."}} That is clearly, '''''clearly''''' not what is being said here: literally [[Strawman fallacy|not a single person in this thread (nor the related VP discussion) has made such an assertion]], nor anything remotely close to it--and bluntly, if that was your take away from the discussions, I think you need to reread with a finer attention to detail.   It is entirely possible for a person to find a belief that another user appears to embrace to be reprehensible, idiotic, lazy, or some combination of all three dialed up to ten, and still believe that the right to participate in this project should not be gated behind the condition of not holding any beliefs that we personally find objectionable.  Indeed, I assure you, it is possible to be a direct target of such small-minded, distressing rubbish, and yet still feel that blocking for having the wrong values to be the incorrect response, or just outright infeasible.{{pb}}  More to the point for our purposes here, whatever our personal feelings about this user's views, all blocks have to meet the the requirements of the blocking policy, and much as I am not actually very eager to see what this user would do even if they were unblocked, I still have yet to see someone satisfactorily explain how an immediate indef [[WP:PREVENTATIVE|WP:PREVENTS]] disruption where a pageblock, tban, or even just a warning/effort at communications and clarifying project norms (none of which the community was able to consider here because of the immediate block) wouldn't have suited.  You may find the desire to have the rules apply equally to all--regardless of their (and our) personal views--to be "gross", but I call that a stance based on principle.  ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 03:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I don't think that SnowRise's comments should be dismissed as "kinda gross". I don't agree with them in this case, but there is no need to restrict discussion of how far we are with Voltaire's apocryphal quotation ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"). [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Saying something is “kinda gross” is not “restrict[ing] discussion “ [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-86111-3|&#126;2026-86111-3]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-86111-3|talk]]) 11:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Regardless, the point is that the position SilverScreen described as gross and ascribed to various (if unspecified) participants of this discussion is not in fact one that anybody was supporting. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::In fact, my concern is even narrower than that: I'm perfectly happy with shutting down divisive speech that does nothing to advance the work of the project.  If nothing else, the edit summary was a [[WP:NOTAFORUM]] violation and had the TA been warned and continued to share their personal views on a controversial issue in a way certain to imflame rather than inform the work of improving the content, then that alone would have been enough disruption for me to better justify a block.{{pb}}  So this is not so much about free speech, or pluralism on this project.  It's about the rules being applied properly. If someone is going to get blocked, let alone indeffed, "You are a small-minded git who believes something I consider repugnant" is not, and cannot be, a valid reason in itself.  You need to look only to the VP discussion linked above (and its predecessors) to see how absolutely, and by what a huge margin, the community rejects that as a standard, even if you replace the "I" in that statement with "almost all wikipedians".  That's clearly what happened here, and why the majority of respondents to this thread have concerns.{{pb}}Look, do I think even that one vague edit summary suggests the TA is likely holds some bigoted views? More than likely.  Do I think if/when they are unblocked they are likely to transform into a productive participant who never runs afoul of project norms again? Highly unlikely.  But do I still think that it's important not to take shortcuts in applying the rules equitably to all users, if only to prevent that process devolving into a nightmare of competing ideological interests engaged in flame wars? Very much so. ''[[User:Snow Rise|<b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b>]][[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b></sup>]]'' 00:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:IMO blocking to prevent disruption requires [[reasonable suspicion]], which means that all we need are rational inferences that follow from specific and articulable facts. I think the edit summary speaks for itself and it's rational to conclude that this editor is NOTHERE. I would almost certainly have warned rather than outright blocked over that edit summary, but I can't say the block was unreasonable. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
*Considering that this thread has stuck around for over two weeks now, with most of the comments since the indef block being about whether or not the block was a good one, I've now opened a thread at the proper venue to discuss that, i.e. [[WP:AARV#2 March 2026 block by The Blade of the Northern Lights]]. Can we close this thread now with a link to the AARV thread in the closing note? —&nbsp;[[User:AP 499D25|<span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP&nbsp;499D25</span>]] [[User talk:AP 499D25|<span style="color:#1A527D">(talk)</span>]] 10:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
{{abot}}