Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GRuban

General comments (moved)

• Supporting is hard based on Serial_Number_54129's diff, even though the candidate seemed to be trying to resolve disputes in good faith at the time. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) So, I've been looking into the issue described in Q7, in which GRuban was very explicitly accused of stalking by multiple editors. What I gather from reading the diffs is that GRuban mistakenly amended the spelling of Carolina Nairne's name in an external link and was reverted by another editor in very harsh and dismissive terms. GRuban clearly felt that he had offended this other editor and apologized on their talk page. After doing so, he commented on an RfC for the article Cary Grant, in which the very same editor had also participated nearly two weeks prior. GRuban was twice reverted by a third-party who asserted that because Legobot had delisted the discussion, it was effectively closed. When GRuban raised the issue on that editor's talk page, several others accused him of being a stalker for participating in the same RfC as the editor who reverted him on Carolina Nairne. He admitted that he came across the discussion after looking through the editor's contribution history, which is not a wise thing to admit to doing publicly – particularly not after said editor has already expressed discomfort with the situation. Following this, GRuban was threatened with a block for harassment.

  First, let me make one thing clear: I view stalking as an extremely serious matter. It is not a joke, and it is not funny. It is a crime. That is why "stalking" is not a word to be thrown around loosely over what could conceivably be nothing more than a coincidence. Now, do I think the editor who reverted GRuban had a valid reason for feeling uncomfortable? Yes, I do – and even if I didn't, it doesn't matter, because I don't have the authority to define other people's boundaries for them. I am not criticizing this editor for expressing discomfort, nor should what I'm saying be interpreted as an invalidation of their feelings. It is perfectly understandable that they would be uncomfortable with GRuban's actions, particularly as he admitted to going through their contribution history and accessing the RfC from there. I think a simple "just be mindful of how you're coming across next time" was warranted, and GRuban had clearly taken this experience to heart. But he did not stalk anyone. Unwittingly overstepping a person's boundaries on one occasion is not the same thing as stalking them. And I say this as someone who strongly believes that there doesn't need to be malicious intent for something to be classified as harassment or stalking.

  I understand that this RfA is currently on track to pass, and that this incident is seen as ancient history (i.e. almost two years ago) from which the candidate has grown, so this comment is perhaps unnecessary. But people throwing around accusations of "stalking" and "harassment" as if those words don't mean anything is something that really gets under my skin. Stalking is a crime. It has a real, lasting impact on those who are subjected to it. Wantonly accusing people of engaging in stalking behavior trivializes the suffering that victims go through. It is not a joke. It is not funny. It is a crime. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Kurtis: For the record, WP:HARASSMENT— blue linked and all caps—Is a particular behavioral policy on the English Wikipedia, and should not be conflated with harassment in real world jurisdictions. It is a crime in most jurisdictions, but not on Wikipedia. So no: no-one's throwing around accusations, merely providing policy-backed arguments in an internal Wikipedia process. Your passion does you credit, but you are mistaken. ——SN54129 10:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see your point. But remember, I'm not in any way suggesting that GRuban's actions were appropriate. They were mildly harassing in nature, even if he had the best of intentions. GRuban's behavior at the time was inappropriate, and he realizes this now. But stalking? In my view, no. Hounding (or "wiki-hounding") is what I would call it. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I wanted to add that I've looked into it a bit further. Apparently GRuban also edited the same pages as SagaciousPhil (whose name I am now using, as she has participated in this RfA), and submitted an RfC on Nairne's talk page the next day. While this does make the discomfort more justifiable, I stand by what I said about stalking not being an appropriate word to use in this context. At most, GRuban innocently pressed against boundaries, and did so out of a desire to edit collaboratively with those who've disagreed with him in the past. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, he was stalking. If you think what he did wasn't stalking or was somehow appropriate, then you need to read the policies and guidelines more closely. Following people round various articles is stalking, no matter how much you try and defend the indefensible. - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The very next comment he made was "I'm sorry, I was wrong, please accept my apologies" and he dropped out of the discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

After having been warned by iridescent: whiiich most editors would, if they were sensible. ——SN54129 11:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and Iri's commment was made after several people had told him it was stalking and GRuban disagreed, over and over. A deeply nastys et of actions cannot be set aside with a rather trite "We are all on the same side" platitude. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Keep in mind though, I'm not saying that he was acting in an appropriate manner – remember, I did say that SagaciousPhil was justified in feeling uncomfortable – but rather that stalking is a term with legal implications. There's a reason WP:STALK has long since been made into a soft redirect. It's the same as when someone is accused of stalking for merely looking at someone's Facebook photos without their knowledge. Something can be creepy or inappropriate, and not be a crime. What GRuban did would be more accurately referred to as wiki-hounding, which technically is a milder form of harassment. But stalking? No, in my opinion that's too strong of a word. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Briefly, per the note at WP:STALK, it looks like there’s been efforts to deprecate use of the term “stalking” (with all its real-world implications) when referring to purely onwiki activity; instead replacing that term with “wikihounding”. Sagaciousphil/SchroCat, would you be willing to reconsider your word choice? –xeno^talk 11:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet no one objected when members of ArbCom used the words stalking and harassment in the proposed decision against Fram? Double standards once again being applied? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(Personally) My stance on that debacle is known: it was a shambles from start to finish. Though I see only limited and indirect use of the word stalk. –xeno^talk 11:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I reflected the language contained within the warning issued: ...but you're coming across as a really, really, creepy stalker in virtually every word of your posts above,... and further: If you want to make this official I can give a Uw-harass4im on your talkpage, but you've been here long enough that I'd expect you to know a basic policy like WP:HARASS without having it explained to you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent has never been one to mince words; though they did couch them (“coming across as”). Different venue, different audience, different purpose. Using the proper term (“wikihounding”) neatly avoids the concerns raised by Kurtis without taking away from the thrust of the oppositional argument. –xeno^talk 12:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

[removed]

As RfA clerks, ours is not to focus on what a candidate did, but to ensure they are treated fairly by the participants. An aspect of fairness is using appropriate terms that are not heavily loaded with real-world meaning when referring to specifically onwiki behaviour. –xeno^talk 13:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

[removed]

@Dr Horncastle: - for that to work you'd need everyone to always use the words in line with their actual legal definitions - and we'd end up bogged down in what exactly that was Nosebagbear (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the candidate continued to follow/annoy/harass (insert word of your choice) here. There is something wrong with that archive - looks like someone didn't close a tag? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realise he carried on going through my sandbox after he'd been told to knock it off... bizzare behaviour and not what I would want to see in an admin. - SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• In any case, everyon's getting extremely bogged down in defining/redefining/dedefining "stalk / stalking", when in fact the linked page was WP:HARASS: Not a soft redirect to meta; not quasi-legalistically comparable to whatever jurisdiction an editor happens to be under, but Wikipedia policy that all users should normally follow. ——SN54129 15:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not unusual to have talk page watchers - I welcome them. What concerns me more are editors who oppose it, which I view as contradictory to the collaborative spirit we expect on WP. Of course, a single incident that GRuban sincerely apologized for back in Jan 2018, which is nearly 2 years ago, is now causing drama it doesn't deserve. I would appreciate an admin moving this discussion over to the TP as they've done for other RfAs. I also object to the PAs against this candidate (creepy, stalking/harassing behaviour) which I find offensive and unwarranted. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Except it was not “a single incident” GRuban acknowledged at the time it was a usual practice, and even continued it after several editors and an admin told them, in no un detain terms, to stop. I think everyone has probably done it once or twice, but GRuban makes it clear that it was a normal practice, not a one-off. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Point accepted Schro. If you believe his apology above for what he did back in Jan 2018 lacks sincerity or commitment, do say and I'll convey the same strongly to him. If you believe otherwise, I'll appreciate that too. Irrespective, as I said, point taken and accepted. I'm confident GRuban would not prove us wrong. I hope you and Sagacious are able to perceive the same. Warmly, Lourdes 17:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• This incident has been blown out of proportion. Sad. I’ve worked collaboratively with GRuban on and off over the years - he is NOT what some editors have portrayed him to be. No matter what he does or says, we will have editors who are going to blow it all out of proportion. Welcome to RfA!! Now we know why good editors are reluctant to put their names in the hat. I have been harassed, hounded and stalked - for real - gunshots left as message on my cell phone - this good editor has done nothing out of the ordinary or to deserve this kind of scrutiny. If and when any editor attempts to tell me they have never watched another editor’s UTP, I am reminded of my years as as an advanced underwater scuba instructor and students would deny they ever peed in their wetsuit. I’d tell them it’s ok to be up front about it - no one is going to blame them for polluting the ocean, but please, rinse your wetsuit in a different tank from mine. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm obviously being dense. There are no logs on this page to show that any edit has been revision deleted or oversighted, and I can't see any personal details or correspondence that has been outed on this page. If this "email incident" is serious, why is GRuban not blocked? I'm not getting it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Ritchie333, if I want to disclose something to you about how I’ve been personally affected by your actions, and how those actions were viewed and interpreted based on other unfortunate things that have happened to me in the past, and I choose to do this in private, there’s probably a reason I chose to do so discretely. I might not want those who have caused me discomfort in the past to necessarily know that their efforts were successful, for such knowledge can lead to continued unwarranted attention. In fact I’m a little uncomfortable even writing all this out, as it too could be considered a form of revictimization: if a clerk feels this exchange should be removed, please do so. –xeno^talk 11:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  It's not a policy violation, it's a judgement issue. Given the circumstances it was an unwise thing to do, and - to me - shows poor sensitivity and common sense in an admin candidate. I think others may see it as a forgivable mistake. Each to their own. But, no, it's not a blockable thing. SilkTork (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding is that this candidate has been in WP for over 14 years - if they had charachter issues that would rule him out of being an admin, we should be drowing in such evidence? Instead, we have an episode that occured after an ANI (which did uphold the candidates' view, in fairness), where he naively tried to make-peace but was labeled as a "stalker" (which I am not sure was a fully fair view, although he was probably naive to attempt it). Then we have an acknowledged mistake of revealing an email (but not its contents) in the "white-hot" arena of an RfA. Obviously your will take you own views, but surely one mistake in a 14-year period is not a fair or balanced way to judge a candidate for adminship? Britishfinance (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  I withhold an opinion on the particular matter, but I will say that the answer to your question lies in argumentum ad absurdum. I only once committed murder, why are you giving me a life sentence? The point is that it depends on the severity of the mistake, whether perceived or objectively determined. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  So you are saying that this candidate's moderate indiscretion (and it is moderate, although not trivial in any way) is now murder? I could take almost any +10 year respected admin in WP, and probably (at least for a decent percentage), find worse indiscretions in their history than what has been provided as a case for Oppose in this RfA. Britishfinance (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Excellent work. You have thoroughly misunderstood. No, I am not calling his "moderate indiscretion" (which is your perception of the matter) murder, I am suggesting to you that a single mistake can (for good reason) sink an RfA. I particularly appreciate your deliberate ignoring the provided caveat that I am not commenting on this specific matter, but on your question. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  (ec) Britishfinance, saying something doesn't make it true. You say he didn't reveal it's contents? That's flat out untrue, he said far too much about the contents. You can still support, just do so truthfully please.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  I think your own comment applies equally, as I don't see he discussed really anything about the mail contents? I hope that Opposes re-take another look at the actual evidence being used for Oppose here, because I think in the context of a 14-year term, it doesn't feel balanced or fair to the candidate. As I said above, a large % of +10 year respected admins have made far worse indiscretions imho (and will continue to do so, but that is life, nobody is perfect). Britishfinance (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Britishfinance, The information from the email was removed by a clerk. It was there for some time, and commented on which is why there has been concern about it. - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding is that the candidate did the redaction themselves and that the material in question did not require a REVDEL (as there was no personal details etc.). From going through in detail what happened on the email myself, the candidate made refernce to items in a spirit of good faith and sympathy with the email sender. It was a mistake of them to mention it (no doubt about that), but it was in no way of the level that would require any form of sanction. Again, if that it the worst discretion that a 14-year term in Wikipedia produces, then that it is not a fair Oppose imho. If this candidate is not of the judgement-level to be an admin (given that there are no questions over their technical skill), then we should have many of examples to choose from over a 14-year term? We don't. If it is one (moderate) strike you are out, we can desyop a material proportion of the existing admin-core now. Britishfinance (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  No one is asking for a sanction - that's something of a straw man. It's also not "the worst discretion" in their time on WP either, given the stalking they undertook on a regular basis that they only stopped a couple of years ago: the fact they had been on WP for 12 years before that without knowing that is something of a red flag, too). The repeating of information from an email was very poor, especially in an RfA (See WP:EMAILPOST, which state "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee once stated as an editing principle that "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki"". Removing the offending bit of information was a good step, but there was another error in who it was done (stating that some of the material was removed, to ensure there was no confusion would be the best step). Errors, misjudgements, bad practice and ignorance of some of the basic rules of interaction. Whether you continnue to support them or not is, of course, entirely up to you, but for me there is enough in these events to make me extremely uncomfortable with the idea that they should have power over others. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Beyond power over others we're talking about increasing their access to private information. Rev deletions, deleted attack pages. When someone can't keep private information to themselves you don't give them more unless you just don't care about who has been and will be hurt.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  But in their 14-years, there are few issues of such events raised. There are vague allegations of stalking (having gone through the official stalking incident referred to above, I think there are other interpritations of a naive attempt to make-up post an ANI). Again, in regard to this specific email incident (which was a mistake, no doubt), there was no disclosure of important information. In fact, Silk Tork, an ArbCom member, just said the following on the candidate's own Talk Page re the email: Because you have not broken any policy in talking about the content of the email, there will be differences of opinion on your action. Obviously, you (both) and I have different opinion on this incident, however, I do think that Opposes (and neutrals) should take a good look through the totality of the email incident (and even the official stalking incident), and judge themselves versus a 14-year terms in WP. If people need perfection, they are going to be disappointed at all RfAs imho. Britishfinance (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  You drop Arb Com member Silk Tork as a reference. Be clear and honest. No half truths. He sits in opposition to this RFA. The fact that we can't drop a block for this action doesn't mean we have to give a life time promotion to someone who can not be trusted.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  I think anyone who is following this discussion knows where Silk Tork stands, not that it invalidates BF's point anyway. The nature of RfA grants opposers a great deal of latitude in making negative comments about the candidate, but BF is not the candidate and does not need to face insinuations of dishonesty. Lepricavark (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  [removed]

  There was no dishonesty about which to make either observations or insinuations. Lepricavark (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  [removed]

  Do you think BF was being dishonest? If yes, where was the dishonesty? Lepricavark (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  [removed]

  You are, of course, aware that your quote, which is merely another statement accusing BF of dishonesty, comes from Cube Lurker, the same editor whose "observations" of dishonesty have already elicited my disagreement. Let's have a look at the timeline: CL observed/insinuated that BF is being dishonest. I disagreed with CL. You contradicted me and, when pressed for evidence, merely provided a different quote from CL accusing BF of dishonesty. It would appear that you and I are wasting one another's time. Lepricavark (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  [removed]

  My apologies. I never intended to waste your time. If you had advised me earlier on that you were merely trolling, I would have disengaged. Lepricavark (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not after perfection, but I am after administrators who avoid errors, misjudgements, bad practice and ignorance of some of the basic rules of interaction. I was one of the people who was stalked across a series of articles. It was all rather chilling and unpleasant - and I only found out yesterday that he continued doing it after he'd been told to stop, I can only hope that he did actually stop after the second warning. We have a female editor (SagaciousPhil), who was also stalked, and who says they thought it was creepy. I wonder how many others there were too. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Silk Tork’s Oppose is not on a breech of any rules (because, as Silk Torl confirms above, none were broken), but on This is not about knowing rules or guidelines, but about respecting the feelings and dignity of others – and yet any research into the candidate's history indicates strongly, that the candidate is probably at the extreme end of being kind and considerate in WP. I do think more reflection is required here, and some balance on this email issue (which was a mistake by the candidate, no doubt), versus their 14-year term + good temperment + technical skill. Everytime I have looked into the stalking issue regarding this specific candidate, it doesn’t really hold up, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  It doesn't hold up? 🤦‍♂️ As one of those who was stalked, I can only say that I hope it doesn't happen to you. SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Per my User Page, I have been stalked, trolled (in packs), had large WP attack pages on me, had attack Reddit threads on me, had multiple national newspapers go after me (even got a tangential reference in the Washington Post, who defended me), have had fake attack variations of my user name, and also just plan abused. Just to be clear SchroCat, I do not take anything you have suffered lightly. My point is that the recent evidence shown here on stalking for this specific RfA, was not clear cut to me. Sorry if I came across as being insensitive, but I can tell you that I also bear the scars. Warmly. Britishfinance (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  I will swap you one of your attack names for the charming SchroCat is a Judeophobic troll, which I am supposed to be (although I'm still not sure what the basis for it is!) (Just to clarify: that is nothing to do with GRuban in any way)- SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• The candidate was not stalking, as far as I can see. Put yourself in their shoes. When you are reverted, it'd be interesting to know who that person is by reading their userpage and contribs. In the course of doing so, the candidate found an rfc he's interested in and left a comment. Some argued that the rfc was closed by a bot. That was certainly not true. The bot merely removed the rfc template at 15:01 and the removal immediately drew a user's objection at 15:15 and 16:19. They just didnt know how to properly counteract the bot. The candidate joined the rfc at 18:19. Take note, the 15:15, 16:19, and 18:19 edits were all reverted by a highly involved user who opposed an infobox, whereas these three edits supported an infobox. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?date-range-to=2018-01-18&tagfilter=&title=Talk%3ACary_Grant&action=history --Roy17 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"The candidate was not stalking, as far as I can see. You are wrong and it seems as if you have insufficient experience to judge. I was followed onto several pages by GRuban, as was SagaciousPhil. Even when he was told to stop by an admin and threatened with a {{Uw-harass4im}} warning, he still continued until he was given a rather blunt warning; I can only hope he finished the practice after that. This certainly was what was described at the time as stalking (now renamed "hounding", but the actions are identical). - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have looked at the involved users' contribs and the pages' histories before 18 Jan 2018 (as well as those after but less closely). Unless revisions were oversighted or this candidate edited using alternative accounts, I dont see the evidence supporting the allegations.

@SchroCat: I urge the alleged victims of this candidate's behaviour summarise the events by providing diffs for the benefit of non-involved users.

By the way, I dont find the Uw-harass4im between the starting point of the incident and a rather blunt warning as claimed by SchroCat.--Roy17 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the harass4im warning. [1]--Cube lurker (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please read what people say. I did not say he was given the warning: I said he was threatened with a Uw-harass4im warning. You can find that warning here. if was part of a series of edits GRuban made tracking Cassianto, me and SagaciousPhil. The diffs are all over the Oppose section; if you can read through that, you will see that the "research" you have done hasn't covered the right areas. The evidence is there (the big clue is that if it was't, several people would have been blocked for making spurious accusations - even GRuban has acknowledged that his actions were wrong (See here. I don't think you denying what has happened is the best course of action to take, but ymmv, I guess. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: again, The diffs are all over the Oppose section, is not so true—only in #10, 14, 17 can a total of five diffs be seen. And none refer to an actual problematic edit by the candidate. (Self-incrimination does not count.) Yall keep refering to a comment by User:Iridescent, but that comment merely refered to other people's words. Even if the warning were given out, it could be meaningful only if it named the problematic edits (diffs).

What would be convincing is simply a list of GRuban's edits, accompanied by what each edit violated.

I hope those who voted based on this incident did so because they saw incriminating evidence but not because other users said so and so. That's m2c if no one lists the actual evidence, without which I dont buy any user's words.--Roy17 (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"Self-incrimination does not count"?? FFS... Nope - you're just taking the piss now. GRuban acknowledges that was a standard modus operandi at that time in this thread. After being warned to stop he carried on, as this thread shows. After Iri put the message to him very bluntly, he seems to have stoped. He has, to his great credit, apologised for it, both at the time and again in the Oppose section above. Do not try and claim it did not happen: it did, and GRuban has acknowledged that, at that time, he did wrong. If you had managed to follow the trails from those diffs in the oppose section through the diffs those comments contained, you could have found all this out yourself. Now stop trying to pretend something didn't happen: it did, and the only question is whether people think that was long enough ago to not matter now, or whether it demonstrates something that means he should not be applying for the mop now. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

For one last time I reply—even though this user still failed to list any realistic evidence—with a quote from WP:HOUND.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.

No solid evidence how GRuban's edits caused distress has been presented—he was trying to improve articles. On the other hand, SchroCat's comments then and now are consistently rude, so I finally took a look at the block log. If s/he insists a mere mention of someone's words without actual evidence could be convincing, the block log is perhaps more so.--Roy17 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

[removed]

I think you are getting close to trolling now. Can you provide any evidence that GRuban was "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles"? (hint: you can't because he wasn't.) And what the hell does my block log have to do with things? I am not trying to get a power that enables me to block people or see deleted information (just to be clear, I am not saying that is why GRuban is getting to tools, but those are two of the things admins can do, if they choose). You are grasping at more and more ridiculous straws in your rather bizarre defence of something that even GRuban has acknowledged used to happen. Take the trolling elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure I am taking the piss now. And I am trolling. And I just incriminated myself.

Supposedly this incident began when SchroCat and SagaciousPhil and GRuban had different views about Josephine Butler. (Then subsequent edits about this are not stalking, since this was the starting point.)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/interaction-timeline?wiki=enwiki&user=GRuban&user=SchroCat&startDate=1512864000&endDate=1516492799

Then GRuban interacted with SchroCat and SagaciousPhil on the following topics:

1. Tottenham Outrage: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tottenham_outrage/archive1#Support_from_GRuban, so much interaction. Where is SchroCat's sign of distress?
2. Carolina Nairne SchroCat edited after GRuban instead for this one.
3. Modest Stein SchroCat edited after GRuban too.
4. Cary Grant GRuban added a comment to the rfc without bothering either SchroCat or SagaciousPhil. (By this time SchroCat has accused GRuban of stalking on User_talk:Cassianto.)
5. Eliza Acton GRuban claimed a photo was wrong. It is indeed wrong.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/interaction-timeline?wiki=enwiki&user=GRuban&user=Sagaciousphil&startDate=1512864000&endDate=1516492799

GRuban interacted with User:Sagaciousphil on the following topics:

1. Bute witches special:diff/815077413 corrected a verb
2. Nicholas Exton special:diff/815077242 minor edit.
3. Carolina Nairne https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?date-range-to=2018-01-20&tagfilter=&title=Carolina_Nairne&action=history and GRuban apologised then before accusation of stalking was floated. The RfC was started addressing another editor User:Eric Corbett, who also edited the page more times than SagaciousPhil.
4. Witchcraft in Orkney special:diff/820947241 minor edit.

Despite his self-incrimination, I dont see how these interactions were so bad as these users claim.

I do check the histories of the articles and each user's contribs. You can widen the search period to between 2017-11-01 to 2018-02-28 in due diligence. OTOH, what evidence has the claimants produced?--Roy17 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Well done on managing to do it yourself rather than needing to be spoon fed. If you're going to do it, however, then please do it honestly, as you missed out the interactions at GGTF, Sagaciousphil's talk page, ANI, My talk page, Cassianto's talk page, and, of course, Iridescent's talk page.

And you still neglected to say that GRuban decided to oppose the Tottenham Outrage FAC over the possible alteration of one word. It was just one petty interaction in a host of them at that time. And still the impact is lost when you don't show that this set of interactions took place over the course of a week. I have said above that I found the behaviour creepy and unsettling—SagaciousPhil has said the same. The next time you decide to go through people's histories, please try to remember that it is an unpleasant experience to be stalked through one's edits, regardless of the motivations. If you try and do it with me (and I note you've already needlessly mentioned my block log), I'll dump you in ANI faster than you can imagine. I think we're done here; there is little constructive in this whole thread, and people trying to claim that stalking isn't stalking while misrepresenting the history are going to get short shrift from me. – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Bingo!! WP:ALLROADSLEADTOINFOBOXES ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Only when the stalkers follow people there, but that's not an uncommon event round here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

---

[clerk edit; Hounding]

• I've replaced some usages of the term "stalk", a word referring to an action that is considered criminal in many juridictions, with "hound" (or variants) as a clerk action. I have not replaced the usages used in general, or those used by the aggrieved parties. This action can be appealed to WP:BN. –xeno^talk 18:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Noting SilkTork’s concern raised on my talk page: Special:PermanentLink/925171260#Stalk v hound. –xeno^talk 09:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

^ Certainly if my clerk edit has introduduced more negativity than what was intended I’d be fine if any of the editors whose comments were changed would like to replace my “hound” with “follow”. –xeno^talk 09:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

← In response to concerns raised by SilkTork and Iridescent, I’ve replaced the clerked instances “hounding” with “unwanted following” without prejudice to the users restoring the “hounding” terminology of their own volition if it more accurately represents their original view. Affected users: @WaltCip, Intothedarkness, GiantSnowman, Fastily, and Laser brain:. –xeno^talk 10:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: Thank you. An equally productive clerk action would be to move this entire SWAMP of a "general discussion" to the talk page; all it's doing here is a distraction. ——SN54129 05:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Amen to that. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

No objection to moving. –xeno^talk 09:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: thanks. GiantSnowman 10:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Whats the point in doing it to "some", xeno? Either do it for all mentions or not at all. And if we are to succumb to such snowflakery and set this new precedent, then might I suggest we change the "(talk page stalker)" tag and do away with WP:STALK? Cassianto^Talk 08:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Cassianto: the reason I did not edit the usages by the aggrieved parties is because those experiences were their own. If they felt stalked then I am not going to tell them how to describe their own experience, and I’d already asked them to reconsider their word choice and presumably they chose to leave it as “stalk”. Now there is some discussion about these clerk edits on my talk page, where I’ve stated my true preference that the term “following” would be used as less problematic than “stalking” or “hounding”, but ultimately felt that would probably be considered too much of a sanitizaion to those who felt put upon. Anyone is free to appeal the clerk action to BN and I won’t be offended if you do so. As to why I didn’t edit the general usages, well, that should be obvious. And, I recognized a couple days ago the irony of me being the one critical of the casual or non-criminal use of the word “stalk” when I coined the term “talk page stalker”: it was in my younger years. WP:STALK is already deprecated since over a decade. –xeno^talk 08:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• {{talk page watcher}}? IJS — Ched (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It's all snowflake nonsense, I'm afraid. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's a duck. Cassianto^Talk 10:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• What about {{"Someone Takes A Look"}} and have the mark up as {{STALk}}...oh, no, wait a minute, that won't work, will it ;) Cassianto^Talk 08:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't been following this RfA that well. But now I see "[clerk edit: Hounding]" in many comments. I'm guessing something was edited out. I'm not asking for the particular text, but can someone kindly give me an idea what type of stuff was removed? —usernamekiran(talk) 08:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I had the same question, It has been answered by Xeno in the immediate section above. I added a subsection header and removed the separator.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note to consider in general, and not aimed at anyone in particular. Anyone thinking that "stalking", or "bullying", or "hounding", or "insulting", or any of a dozen other words we use in the real world today, is any LESS accurate, or real, or kind just because it happens on the Internet - I suggest you read Social media and suicide. What happens on the web does often have real world consequences. IMO, all this political correctness that we're spewing these days is doing a hell of a lot more damage than the words themselves ever could. Thanks for the space to vent. — Ched (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved comments to talk page per suggestions. –xeno^talk 13:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• And for the record, I'm not saying that we should never classify anything as stalking. We've had actual instances of stalking on Wikipedia before, and in those cases, we do the victims a disservice by not calling a spade a spade. It's only when actions do not quite meet that threshold where I take issue, because I feel it runs the risk of eliminating any nuance from the discussion about varying degrees of harassment. Words do matter. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiHounding?

I'm confused about the accusations of "stalking"; people have mentioned it, but I don't see a summary of it. Can someone provide me a summary of what's happened? From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@AnUnnamedUser: Basically, GRuban was editing a page, made a mistake in altering a source, and was reverted by SagaciousPhil. GRuban felt bad about it and left a note on her talk page. After doing so, he proceeded to look through SagaciousPhil's contribution history and edit some of the same pages as her, along with commenting on an RfC in which she had also participated. While misguided, these edits were done with the intention of defusing tension between himself and SagaciousPhil. Cassianto repeatedly reverted his comment on the RfC because it came after Legobot had delisted it, which meant that the discussion was pending closure. GRuban brought it up at ANI, as well as at Cassianto's talk page, where he was rebuked for seemingly following SagaciousPhil around. After being questioned about it, he admitted to going through the contribution histories of editors with whom he'd had disagreements in the past and editing articles of interest to them, as a means of making amends. This... weirded everyone out, and Iridescent sternly warned GRuban against ever following editors in such a manner again, lest he be blocked. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not quite the full story; a few days after being warned not to follow editors around in this manner, GRuban came to my talkpage to say that he was now following around another editor with whom he'd been in dispute, not just to articles but to that editor's own userspace sandbox. It's that which prompted my really stern warning; there was a legitimate AGF explanation on the first occasion that he genuinely didn't understand that other editors found it creepy to be followed around in this fashion, but it's much harder to defend being told in no uncertain terms to stop following people around and continuing to do so anyway. ‑ Iridescent 23:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

GRuban has made like 5,000 edits in the 22 months since that occurred, without incident. – Levivich 23:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I actually didn't notice that before. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Things are starting to make more sense. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

One thing I find baffling in User:Iridescent's user talk page comment is:

1. GRuban's comments at 21:52 and 21:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC) linked to Eliza Acton, not the sandbox.
2. Eliza Acton's version at that time is special:permalink/821145342. The wrong photo was on that page.
3. The wrong photo was uploaded to Commons and added to the article by User:Chiswick Chap: special:diff/806055522.

I dont understand how the conclusion of following into a sandbox was arrived at.--Roy17 (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Because, as others have pointed out before, the article was being rewritten in my sandbox, where the image also was. That's how he made his way to that article. The full thread on that page makes it a bit more clear, rather than just his opening statement to the thread. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh really? Was SchroCat not editing the main namespace article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eliza_Acton&offset=20180119000000&limit=10&tagfilter=&action=history

Is putting words into another user's mouth (though he did not refute nor admit those words) sufficient evidence?--Roy17 (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Given the stalking that had gone on before, given the title of the thread on Iri's page, given the fact he could have edited the article, but did not as the day before he had been told he was "coming across as a really, really, creepy stalker", but continued to follow my edits, it's somewhat disingenuous to try and claim some form of belated innocence where none exists. It's time to disengage from this: you are not helping the candidate's case by continuing to press the point beyond all reasonable measures. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved content

[Removed] sock !vote of Eric Corbett.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Dr Horncastle, Re: Unless of course there's a general Statute of Limitations I'm unaware of for all editors, and not just for popular RfA candidates. would you want something held over your head almost 2 years after it happened? Kb03 (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

[removed]

This one was interesting to me. Before I learned about watch lists, I used to look for things to do by following certain people around. I realized that it might seem creepy, and I hope I didn't do it in a way that they got creeped out. I am kind of surprised that the candidate was still doing this, after he had been editing for 5 years. But I hope he has learnt his lesson. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

One learns a lesson if they touch an inconspicuously lit oven and burn themselves, knowing not to do such a thing in the future; one should know that the hounding of a female editors around and doxxing them is wrong from the start. Cassianto^Talk 21:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What the hell do you mean, "doxxing them"??? The nominee doxxed nobody. That's really a low blow. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The nominator copy/pasted private emails, which is possibly worse. I think Cass has a point of substance that you might consider, Carrite, before such a gross assumption of bad faith. Also, the Dr Horncastle account (see below) has 600 odd edits to its name, but is suddenly everywhere. Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil, "copy/pasted" is not correct. The diffs are not revdel'd, you can look for yourself. Please strike that. – Levivich 19:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

If you insist on making inaccurate statements, you should not expect to be taken seriously. Your above statement is false and as such should be actionable. Lepricavark (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok so, the email incident. Actionable how? Ceoil (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, there are limits on what can be said about an RfA candidate. You crossed the line by making a demonstrably false statement. It's clear that you don't like this candidate and you are entirely within your rights to oppose him. However, you should restrain yourself to criticizing him based on what he actually did and not based on a fictionalized version of events. Lepricavark (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Carrite. Cassianto, please abide by the principles you advanced here. Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

[removed]

Yeah but both nominators have said on the candidates talk page that he shouldn't withdraw. – Levivich 19:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

[removed]