Requests for comment/Global ban of James Salsman

The following request for comments is closed. The request for comment has been resolved by enacting a global ban.



Hello, my name is MJL. I will be presenting the case against James Salsman. I am an admin on Scots Wikipedia and now occasional target of James Salsman criticisms. I never knew who this user was until the recent controversy on Scots Wikipedia broke out (known to some as Leidgate). For reasons that will become clear later though, I have a particularly negative bias towards James Salsman. Therefore, parts of this report may prominently display that perspective to an unfair level or have a tendency to overcorrect for that bias by making light of otherwise serious issues. I will still try to do my best to keep this as neutral as possible.



New accounts as of 3 October 2020:

Depleted uranium


James Salsman (talk · contribs) started editing English Wikipedia as Nrcprm2026 in 2005 (an account he still has access to btw). He began with sustained and aggressive point of view editing to depleted uranium and associated articles. (Arbcom 6 May 2006) After his ban from depleted uranium, he started a months-long socking campaign to edit that topic despite frequent and repeated requests for him to stop.

Actually, he doubled down and claimed WP:IAR required him to break his editing restrictions.[1] This is what decisively got him banned from English Wikipedia. While he never stopped socking until 2013 (7 years for those counting), I'm going to move on as further information is provided below.

Scots Wikipedia


This is where recent events come into play. At this point, James Salsman has been blocked and unblocked on Meta Wikimedia following his email scandal in 2012. Leidgate comes out, and here he is ready to help.

His proposal to pay auditors to review Scots Wikipedia is pretty quickly rejected. He decided to re-factor it anyways as small proposal p.6 which began as an out-of-place attack on a colleague of mine. Only an hour later, he made small proposal p.7 requesting emergency admin appointments. Despite a modest level of pushback, he went ahead and nominated 7 different users for adminship anyways with plans for six more underway. It was at this point, I told him to stop.



Skipping past the events that led to him being banned from the Meta RFC, I want to speak about how James Salsman reacted to my warning. His response was to pester me both on and off wiki trying to get me to reverse my position.[2][3][4] When all this was going on, I wrongly assumed he was just doing this with me because I never told him not to. I couldn't have been more wrong there.

I've provided off-Wiki evidence to Base and others regarding James Salsman speaking inappropriately, out of the blue, with a member of the free knowledge movement.

He received a strong warning from a colleague of mine (ironically one of the seven he himself nominated for admin) due to his trying to get members of the WMF and the Scottish Government to intervene in the Leidgate matter. However, he kept this up in the Scots leid community Discord. Eventually, I got fed up with what I perceived to be his disruption on a project that really couldn't afford it. Therefore, I wrote a proposal to permanently ban him from Scots Wikipedia (which I highly recommend giving a read).

Final events


Following a confluence of events including what's written above, he decided to escalate matters by trying to out me on Scots Wikipedia. This led to his current block there.

He took to Twitter to respond to the block questioning the efficacy of it and all that (while also unintentionally doxxing me on my Twitter). Most people in his position would probably understand I am trying to move on from past mistakes and regain some amount of privacy, but instead he called me incompetent and/or malicious. He doesn't regret what he did and made clear he will not leave me alone as I have requested. This is a large part of the reasoning for his current block on Meta Wikimedia.


  • James Salsman has a long and troubled history of socking on multiple projects.
  • The user in question does not listen to others when they say to stop.
  • James Salsman's first instinct is to blame the other party in every dispute and has never seriously considered himself to be wrong before.
  • He has attempted to out and doxx editors as retaliation for onwiki conflicts.
  • This user has engaged in repeated and unwanted offwiki harassment including to further onwiki agendas.
  • Not knowing a project's language does not seem to be a barrier for him to cause disruption through his contributions.

Criteria confirmation

  1. The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam.
    Not vandalism: Correct
    Nor spam: Aye
  2. The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems.
    Warnings from admins: Definitely
    Time given to change: 15 years
  3. The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects.
    English Wikipedia: Check 1
    Scots Wikipedia: Check 2
    Meta Wikimedia: Check 3
Required Steps
Nominator requirements
  • have a Wikimedia account: User:MJL
  • be registered for more than six months before making the request: Yup.
  • have at least 500 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis): Special:CentralAuth/MJL

Previous discussions


Here are some highlights which can give a pretty good idea of the scale of this 15-year-long problem:

Statements by James Salsman


Transcluded from User talk:James Salsman:

MJL says they "have a particularly negative bias towards" me, but a week ago called me "a good faith contributor,"[5] because their accusations are against my expressions of opinion, political beliefs, and manner of reference by published name instead of pseudonym, with all of which they disagree.

During the content dispute regarding depleted uranium in 2007, I was providing sourced and verifiable information to counter what I still believe was deliberate misinformation being inserted by pseudonymous editors who claimed to be highly credentialed chemists and a medical doctor working for the US Army. My point of view was upheld by others after I stopped editing, and remains in the pertinent sections of the depleted uranium and Gulf war illness articles to this day. The Department of Veterans Affairs now recognizes the harm of, and provides compensation for, depleted uranium exposure. I don't know whether that would have been achieved if it were not for my efforts, but I am certain that the encyclopedia would still have medically dangerous false information otherwise. So I don't regret my actions then, and I believe I applied w:WP:IAR correctly. My indefinite block, months after arbitration concluded, was placed because my telling an editor who claimed to be an M.D. that saying breathing uranium combustion fumes is safe would be medical malpractice, was construed as a legal threat. I don't believe it was a legal threat to this day, because I wouldn't have standing to bring such a claim, among other reasons. While I was socking, and within what I believe was w:WP:STANDARDOFFER at the time, I brought one article to featured article status and several others, including w:Birth control, to good article status.

MJL is mistaken about the order of events concerning the Scots Wikipedia proposals, e.g., someone else refactored the proposals. And their accusation of an "attack on a colleague of mine" means my request to ask the 19 year old evangelical Christian brony who, after obtaining administrator permissions on scowiki, created more than 42,000 articles in a language other than Scots ("Scotched English") to voluntarily agree to refrain from editing on the Scots Wikipedia. (He did not, and resumed editing during the editathon created to repair his vandalism.) This request was considered insufficiently sensitive towards the admin's neurodiversity, but I persisted saying that consequences serving to prevent further such abuses were necessary. At least five other people at the RFC expressed the same opinion, but I was singled out because of my persistence. When another editor pointed out that the Haitian Creole Wikipedia suffered similar problems, I pointed to Chelsea Clinton's letter to her parents from Haiti, and argued that the way the US government treats Haitians and their language and educational infrastructure is directly analogous to how the Scots Wikipedia has been affecting the Scots language, e.g. with Scottish Members of Parliament reading articles from the Scots Wikipedia in proceedings which caused the language to fail to achieve official status in Scotland along with English and Gaelic, even though millions of adults and hundreds of thousands of students speak Scots. That political argument quickly led to my being banned from the RFC.

A long time ago, I decided to focus on editing controversial issues, and so I am used to the fallout from arguments about controversial topics, of which these accusations are the most recent but hardly the most substantive. Just because editors can not tolerate political arguments which do not show them in positive light does not mean that they or anyone else is being disrupted. Mature people are able to accept criticism and learn from it, not rush to censorship. My communications with Government of Scotland officials have already resulted in multiple referrals to the Scots Language Center's clean-up effort, and I intend to continue them.

Vermont, an admin on Meta, claimed that my proposal to pay editors fluent in Scots to help correct the problem was beyond the pale because they believed incorrectly that the Foundation never pays people to edit, but when I asked them whether Wikipedians in Residence are paid to edit, and brought up the long history of the Foundation funding paid editing projects, they became very angry and unilaterally banned me from the RFC.

MJL is a public figure who has campaigned for and very recently held public office   As MJL has said, the use of their short last name is not outing (although now they are calling the use of their   last name "doxing" -- which they apparently originally accused me of, leading to my block on the scowiki) and is not against the letter or the spirit of the Terms of Use. Avoiding accountability and scrutiny by hiding behind pseudonyms is par for the course on the projects, but the right to do so ends when it harms readers by deteriorating the accuracy of the encyclopedia. I have long complained about the very serious deleterious effects of libertarian skew in the English Wikipedia, leading to bias in favor of austerity and economic inequality. Moreover, while I am still researching their position on abortion, I believe it is in agreement with the 19 year old vandal they seek to protect. I am disappointed but not at all surprised that the clash of these opinions has led to this situation. A public figure who claims that their newfound genderfluidity must keep them from the accountability of others scrutinizing their public record does not mean that referring to them by name is outing, doxing, or a Terms of Use violation as they alleged.

I am certain that I didn't mention or ping MJL off-wiki any more frequently than they were pinging me. The replies on Twitter were to their tweet inviting questions about the Scots Wikipedia issues. You can't complain about uncomfortable comments and mentions if you've invited questions about a huge problem which may involve dozens of potential solutions.

MJL says I have "never seriously considered himself to be wrong before," but fails to mention the work I put in to determining the most appropriate name for the Scots Wikipedia draft namespace, including correcting my mistaken proposal of the word "preliminary".[6] This casual disregard for accuracy in the form of personal attacks pervades the case against me as stated. My successful completion of a Google Summer of Code mentorship for the Foundation in 2016 shows that I have the ability to support newcomers along with the technical and editing community without drama. MJL says I have "a long and troubled history of socking on multiple projects," but hasn't identified any such instances since 2013 or on any projects other than the English Wikipedia.

I have indicated that I intend to seek mediation with the help of a steward after a cooling-down period, and I still intend to do so. Even moreso, I welcome the opportunity to discuss my case with the Trust and Safety team members assigned to it and the other Foundation officials involved in the Global Ban process.

Finally, I note for the closer that the first nine !votes in the #Survey were cast before I had posted this response to the allegations. James Salsman (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I corrected the three mistaken pronouns which were inadvertent errors, as evidenced by the several other uses of your preferred pronouns. You are a public figure by choice,  . Running and holding public office under an announced ideological political platform is not your "personal life." With regard to your claim that I've never admitted error, that's inaccurate hyperbole, as evidenced by my paragraph describing "correcting my mistaken proposal" above. James Salsman (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Isabelle Belato: yes. The facts you describe as personal attacks were published by MJL on-wiki. Do you believe that those under scrutiny for behavior issues should not be allowed to refer to such facts as they believe are necessary to explain their choices and circumstances? James Salsman (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Admin note some of the content in James Salsman's post has been redacted as non-public personal information of another contributor. James Salsman, regardless of any ongoing global ban discussion, continuing to post such information here will force me to revoke your talk page access. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The redacted information was published by MJL both on their project user page and a newspaper article they wrote as part of a political campaign for public government office. The redactions are also inconsistent, in two instances leaving the same information unredacted elsewhere in my statement. Even the proposed Universal Code of Conduct's stricter of its two standards on the topic does not prohibit discussing information the user has published on a project wiki. James Salsman (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL, PiRSquared17, and Base: Is the accusation of me "speaking inappropriately, out of the blue, with a member of the free knowledge movement" in reference to a Foundation official who I have met in person and have been on good terms with since? Is the accusation of speaking inappropriately one of an in-person or online contact? It's impossible to respond to such vague accusations. James Salsman (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: is the person who provided the message the recipient or a third party? If the latter, you and they had no idea of whether I have met the member and whether we are on good terms prior to the messsge, did you? This is the only time I've ever been accused of outing anyone, so your "tendency" description is more inaccurate hyperbole. James Salsman (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: so a recipient of a message from me considered it inappropriate, and reported it to you as such, instead of raising the issue with me or T&S? James Salsman (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PiRSquared17: so, on a scale of 1 being relatively innocuous, 2 being asking for free work, 4 being offering indentured servitude, and 5 being something worse? James Salsman (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my lack of response; I've been away since Friday morning. Thank you GZWDer for answering James's question above. James, I will note that I'm quite saddened by what you've written here; you've responded to accusations of attacks with more attacks, responded to accusations of releasing personal information by releasing that personal information, blatantly lied about the reasons for your ban from the RfC and the block, and accused others of using identity to escape "accountability" when you are the only one here being legitimately accused of wrongdoing. Your response to MJL's claim that you never consider yourself to be fallible was to point to your accomplishment finding a name for the scowiki draft namespace and how you corrected your spelling error. And yet, you find it necessary to entirely fabricate the base of your arguments here. James, I'm tired of this, and I've done everything in my admin toolbox to rectify your behavior, giving you much more rope than necessary, especially for someone with such a long history of issues. We, and by that I refer to myself and the admin team, seek to have as many editors as possible contributing constructively to discussions on Meta-Wiki. You, through the problems outlined on this page and in your contributions over the last month or so, have forced administrative action. Your responses to other editors continue to ignore, in full, what you're responding to, and dramatically misrepresent the truth. So, let me make this clear: the people commenting on your global ban discussion know how to read. They can scroll up a few sections on this page and see, in plain detail, the vast difference between your dramatic retelling of this saga and the truth of the circumstances around your warning, RfC ban, and block. On that note, given that I've made previous administrative actions regarding you, and that you've now accused me of wrongdoing, I will refrain from voting on the global ban discussion or taking any further administrative action on this issue. Regards, Vermont (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: may I omit disclosures which could expose the Foundation or me to legal threats? James Salsman (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: It's neither of those reasons, although I'm sure I've violated censorship laws in at least two non-US countries. I'm not interested in associating any editing with my real name any further, for reasons I'm willing to discuss privately with T&S or an uninvolved steward. James Salsman (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error: "e.g. with Scottish Members of Parliament reading articles from the Scots Wikipedia in proceedings which caused the language to fail to achieve official status in Scotland along with English and Gaelic"

The above quote is not true. No such thing has ever happened. A Scots Language Act (or similar opportunity for it to receive equal status with English, Gaelic and British Sign Language) has never been presented to the Scottish Parliament for debate. I'm also unaware of any occasion where a MSP has directly quoted articles from Scots Wikipedia during any parliamentary proceedings. Soothrhins (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soothrhins: did you intend to post that in the ban discussion instead of my comments section? In any case, as Ultach wrote, "When a politician pulls out a piece of paper and reads an excerpt from it and the entire chamber erupts into laughter, I run the risk of repeating myself but I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss the hurt that some people experienced from all of this. 400 years of being told your language is a backwater peasant cant and someone dedicated seven years of their life to confirming that...." The fact remains the language lacks official status even with millions of native speakers, whether the derision from politicians because of the Scots Wikipedia ever made it to the floor of the Scottish Parliament or their written proceedings. It's probably been more damaging when the same thing happened in the press several times. James Salsman (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@James Salsman: The factual error is here not on the RfC. I believe that the user you are quoting was referring to proceedings in the Northern Ireland Assembly not the Scottish Parliament. In your reply to myself above, you are making unsubstantiated claims. Assuming that "derision from politicians" in Northern Ireland means that Scottish politicians have done likewise—if such derision from Scottish politicians has happened then I am unaware of it. In fact I can find examples of the exact opposite, here and here. Your personal opinion may be different, but as a native Scots speaker (and someone who follows Scottish politics) I want to make it clear Scots Wikipedia is not the reason the language lacks official equal status (with other languages) in Scotland. Soothrhins (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoozaz1: why do you think I had included "the user's name in the reply on this page" -- I did not. I took it down off-wiki as soon as noticed I was asked. The name had been published on-wiki to reserve the name from use by others, as MJL indicated when they renamed their account. If you leave a redirect to make sure nobody can use your real name, you can't claim you're trying to keep it secret. James Salsman (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it has to be redacted by admins, it's a problem for me regardless of the specifics. Zoozaz1 (talk)
The redactions were by MJL. Two of them did not remove information from the statement, and the third corrects a perceived personal slight. Moreover, I did not misrepresent the truth as Vermont alleges. James Salsman (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL and WhatamIdoing: I am unlikely to place the naming desires of an inexperienced admin who has run for and held public office above the needs of millions of speakers of an endangered language. I think I made my opinion of the Legal department's attitude towards Status Labs clear -- are they using similar loopholes to avoid scrutiny? James Salsman (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: that's a double standard. You are asking me to forfeit any remaining privacy for what I have already admitted include edits very likely against the law in at least two non-US countries, but asking that I respect the demands for retroactive pseudonymity of an editor who became an admin on a wiki in a language he does not speak, read, or write (and makes light of that fact still) after announcing their political agenda [redact] and outlining political strategies to achieve their goals while discussing editing with their like-minded associates. James Salsman (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I do not share your opinion about the fact that you are insisting on a double standard. I reserve the right to decide whether to make the disclosures you request after I have had the opportunity to discuss the Status Labs situation[7] with a representative from the Legal Department. James Salsman (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the account you're considering disclosing EllenCT? Vermont (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ellen has stopped editing, and is considering her next move relative to being accused as the same person as I am. Both of us are secure in our confidence that you should review [8]. James Salsman (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seemplez: desperate for what? If the global ban succeeds then my pseudonymity will be enforced by Foundation policy. James Salsman (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@My hat stinks: I trust that we both look forward to the day when the Government of Scotland produces its official documents necessary for enfranchisement in Scots in addition to English and Gaelic. James Salsman (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please note that this decision is not based on previous global bans RfCs i have involved in. I have supported for global bans in all of those failed RfCs, but i have learned since then to be more careful on who i'm going for a global ban. This one, as i found it, is worthy of a global ban. SMB99thx 05:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose User isn't blocked on the vast majority of WMF sites they edit. I also note that MJL has only notified projects on which James is blocked, which makes this a purely partisan exercise. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:29D8:4E35:23DD:6DB3 07:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per SMB99thx. This activity must cease.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per nominator. This user clearly has a chronic attitude problem, and doesn't know when to let go. My few interactions with him, during the Scots wiki RfC, were pretty negative, and it seemed clear to me that James doesn't understand–or care about–how his actions can affect others adversely. This is further proved by his outing of a fellow editor, as well as his off-wiki harassment. Isabelle 🔔 12:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support My record of voting for global bans clearly shows that I vote more opposes (even for some eventually office action banned users) than support, but I can't help but vote for their ban. They have more than enough rope, I shall note that on meta, they was blocked for sockpuppetry and conducted surveys and revealed personal information which are deemed inappropriate by legal. That was in 2012. They was subsequently blocked and the block was reviewed but uphelded in 2016. It was only in 2017 the block was lifted under conditions that they are under mentorship of one of our most experienced editors here on wikimedia movement. Apparently they did not gain from the invaluable time Doctor James put into. Now, they continued the disruption on meta, which was laid out by MJL above in 2020, leading to a ban on a RFC (upheld on appeal on RFH) and then they are subsequently reblocked for incivility. On scowiki the issues are even worse, harassing MJL and tried to out them (might not be outing, but clearly there is harrassments). On enwp, they are community banned. We are not dealing not with a misguided editor, with good intentions and need some rope. We are dealing with an editor, which refuses to adhere to basic decorum of civility in communication, vexatious litigation of issues which are clearly explained time and time again to them. This is done in a crosswiki manner, leading to multiple editors having to correct them without avail. Yes, they may cease for a while, but recidivism rate is high. This is still okay, however, the constant harrassment of an editor, from metawiki to scowiki for a RFC they don't even have a stake in (i.e. they aren't sco speaker), and subsequently using off wiki means (twitter) to continue this badgering. this is what trips me over. I am of the point that we did enough, they are now a net negative to the movement. Regretfully support. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per nom. No more. Ed6767 (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC
  • Support Supportmany Problems with this User--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 14:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Honestly the off-wiki harassment makes me think it might be worth getting T&S involved. Frood (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support as Camouflaged Mirage lays out, currently a net negative to the movement --DannyS712 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support At this point I just can't reasonably argue in their favour any more, every time I try they just double down. I tried issuing a warning when I first saw issues appearing, explicitly telling them not to harass people off-wiki. Instead of listening they immediately went off-wiki to accuse someone of putting me up to it. I argued heavily in their favour to narrow the scope on the Scots wiki block RfC, and when the scope was narrowed I ultimately left the decision to other users instead of voicing support. However, yhey then forced my hand by revealing personal information of another user seemingly unprovoked. Still, I was more than willing to give them a fair shot during the appeal I assumed they'd make (they've instead claimed they're escalating the situation). Even here I wasn't going to voice support for a global ban, I already had a {{neutral}} tagged comment written up. But again they doubled down in their statement, revealing yet more personal information of another user, attacking other users' (as far as I can tell completely irrelevant) politics, and outright attacking other users. This is just completely unacceptable behaviour. I have given them every opportunity to be constructive but they have instead escalated at every point. My hat stinks (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Long, demonstrated pattern of cross-wiki (and off-wiki) abuse, plus the ad hominem attacks in the statement above. Levivich (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per majority of the votes above. Meiræ 16:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support even if this gets referred to T&S (which it should be) - because it gives the community a chance to say that we do not approve of this behavior. --Rschen7754 16:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • T&S hammer and Community hammer is different, and both hammers can be applied. And I think we should show them the door. — regards, Revi 17:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Not just because of the issues MJL and others have raised here, but also because James Salsman's response leads me to believe that he doesn't realise that his behaviour is in fact problematic. The continuously demonstrated insistence on discussing the personal lives of contributors and making this about individuals (despite being repeatedly asked not to do so), combined with an extensive history of other problematic behaviour, leads me to believe that his attitude is not compatible with the collaborative environment we should all be trying to foster. Blablubbs (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support - behaviour not compatible with these collaborative projects, whether or not he's been socking since 2013. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per nom. Cross-wiki and off-wiki disruption are one thing, but outing (especially the recidivism at their talk page during this discussion) proves that there is almost zero doubt that they are a net negative to the Wikimedia movement. ミラP 04:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support James Salsman was extraordinarily disruptive on and it’s no surprise that he has engaged in disruptive behaviour elsewhere. That he appears unable to change his behaviour or seemingly even to recognise the disruptive nature of his behaviour leads me to support this motion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I am by no means an expert on policy surrounding global bans, but after reading up on it I see justification for the ban. James Salsman is distinctly a toxic user and a net negative for the Wikimedia community, and therefore do not deserve to be part of it. Giraffer (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears I am a bit late here but this is bad. Imagine attaching to a new project that you don't care about or even speak the language just so you want to cause more problems. Much less just one of the many problems that this editor has done. This activity needs to stop, as explained by just about every editor I know above (seems like everyone can agree on something like this) Naleksuh (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Everyone has a POV, and if your POV is radically anti-United States/some form of uranium, then fine. That's not a reason to be globally blocked, it's a reason to be blocked on projects where you insert your POV. I continue to believe that he acted in good faith on the meta proposal, certainly not being helpful at times but nonetheless in good faith. If it were just that, I would oppose. Outing, however, is something entirely different. His responses have given me the impression that his avowed anti-America (or whatever) POV has led him to out give out personal information of a politician largely because MJL is a politician. Being entirely unrepentant to the extent of including the user's name it in the reply on this page leads me to clearly support this user being globally banned. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zoozaz1: I'm not a guy. Also, James didn't respond with my name here. He just keeps (1) revealing other details about my life and (2) telling people exactly where to find it. –MJLTalk 06:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support completely unacceptable behaviour for any user. Additionally, persistent attempts to dox anyone on or offwiki is a ground for a WMF-legal ban, and I can't help but support this RfC strongly. Possibly T&S should be asked to consider an office action? JavaHurricane 06:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Enough is enough. There is absolutely no need to reveal personal info of others, even if they've posted it out themselves in the past. --Minorax (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per nom. Salsman has gone way too far and has had way too much time to change. Seemplez (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. Unacceptable behaviour, causing considerable harm that we just can't deal with any longer. --Yair rand (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support, per all of the above. Em-mustapha User | talk 14:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support per above and my own personal interactions with them. Legoktm (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Looking at the documentation, the violations of local and global policies, especially those concerning harassment and outing over a long-term period are extremely serious, and that this sort of action is indefensible under any circumstances. Hx7 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. The user under review meets all of the criteria for a global ban, and has additionally engaged in both on- and off-wiki harassment. — Newslinger talk 09:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. Gamaliel (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. I do not know Salsman personally or had any interactions with him on- or off-wiki. What I do know is that MJL has sought to work with Scots speakers to clear up the Scots Wiki mess -- which they acknowledge they played a part in -- while Salsman on the other hand has showed no such contrition for his past mistakes.
Salsman has adopted a clear heavy-handed approach: he made threats to ram through his proposals for the wiki without any consensus (disregarding the Scots speakers who said his contributions were unhelpful); he has repeatedly made disparaging comments about other editors hobbies, political views and personal lives both on- and off-wiki -- e.g. mentioning that AG is a Christian and a brony, as well as his comments about AG's supposed autism. (I don't know if the latter is true or not, but it's not as if any of this makes a difference to any of the Scots Wiki discussions that are ongoing.) He's also refused to stop going off-topic or revealing personal information when being told by other Wikipedians that this might constitute harassment.
Whether his behaviour technically counts as doxxing or outing (the information is out there if you dig for it, but publishing it on Wikipedia or Twitter is clearly broadcasting it to a wider audience) is irrelevant; Salsman himself talks about the difference between the letter and the spirit and this definitely goes against the spirit of Wikipedia's anti-doxxing policies. I fully agree that people should not be able to evade their past by hiding behind pseudonyms, but there is no evidence that anything like that was taking place. MJL's birthname, political views and public office past in the United States are irrelevant to their edits on Scots Wikipedia; rather, this seems a personal vendetta against someone he disagreed (including on baseless hypotheticals like this comment: Moreover, while I am still researching [MJL's] position on abortion, I believe it is in agreement with the 19 year old vandal they seek to protect. 'Still researching' is vague, ominous, and frankly stalkerish; besides, what relevance is someone's view on abortion to any of the Leidgate discussions?). In any case, his comments on Scots Wikipedia articles being read out in the Scottish Parliament to disparage the Scots language -- based on a misreading of a user's comment who actually hails from Northern Ireland -- shows that his own abilities and knowledge of the politics surrounding Scots is shaky at best, and that he ought to do a bit more research before he comments on the matter.
I don't doubt that Salsman has made positive contributions to Wikipedia, but repeated personal attacks and harassment of others is totally beyond the pale. His attitude to those who criticise him, and those who don't agree with his proposals for a Wikipedia project in a language he doesn't speak (including a number of native speakers) and previous bans show a user who is unwilling to change their heavy-handed approach to all Wikimedia projects. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support the statement above only solidifies this. Such blatant disregard for fellow editors and the processes of its community cannot, and will not, be tolerated. Furthermore, the editor has attacked editors repeatedly off and on-wiki. Repeated revealing of personal information of particular editors is completely unacceptable. They even did so in their above statement (which parts required redacting), where they had the opportunity to commit to change. Such editors should not be welcome to edit any Wikimedia project. --IWI (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support As per Bangalamania's thorough account above. The previous actions noted above show a pattern of uncooperative and obsessive behaviour but I can only attest to what I have witnessed as someone who joined the effort to set Scots Wikipedia back on a positive path. While I agree with the assessment that Salsman's approach was heavy-handed and prone to create unhelpful distractions, I tried to assume good faith. The only relevance to a global ban that I can find in those actions is they evidenced that this was someone who was willing to be forceful to get things done, this is fine by itself but Salsman also wasn't particularly willing to take constructive feedback, adapt any plans or engage democratically. From there what I have seen is a spiral into increasingly personal attacks followed by an unhealthy focus on people's personal tastes and political views. These have nothing to do with these people's contributions to projects and are irrelevant to the working relationship that editors require to improve free-content projects. For me, this behaviour is beyond what it is acceptable. The outing incident in particular crosses a line, it is both a clear violation of Wikimedia's community policies and an action that I personally found ethically abhorrent. Monospaced (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Some people have the talent and energy to create disruption on multiple projects and they need to be removed to protect the community. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Their comments here and the extensive and the frankly despicable level of deception in their statements are almost enough reason on their own. The sockpuppeting, personal attacks and tendentious editing that have been repeated across their entire career on multiple projects are further nails in their self-built coffin. Eggishorn (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support The WMF may ban him too probably -ArdiPras95 (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support The fact that I had to think twice about putting my name to this for fear of retribution just shows the unconstructive and often toxic culture this editor creates around their contributions. Soothrhins (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I wasn't planning to comment on this mostly because it seemed a done deal and I didn't recognise the names very well. After finding out they were EllenCT (who's views and comments I sometimes found a bit odd, but didn't have any real problem with) and reading about their behaviour I find myself compelled to support to send the message this is not the sort of editor who should be welcome on any of our projects. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support We ought to ban when a person presents a clear and present threat to the movement or its members. The disregard for editor privacy and weaponizing of personal information (public or not) to intimidate editors demonstrated on this very page make it clear the editor should be banned, obviously, but per Nil it is important to make clear that the community does not accept behavior like this on any project. Wugapodes (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettably, this editor is only here to disrupt, not constructively contribute, to various Wikimedia policies. Therefore, I Support Support the ban. Buidhe (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support. This editor is a genuine menace, troll, and pain the arse. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Support Support, per everyone above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support This type of behaviour should not be tolerated in our movement and people like him are not welcome here. Amir (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support -- Better late than never. I would like to comment in particular that this user has a curious vindictive streak; there is nothing unusual with voicing strident criticism, but I feel that this user does not know when to let a point go, nor does this user abide by the standards of decency expected by this project. I cannot express my support for this measure strongly enough. Ban this user and save us all the headache. RexSueciae (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support - Imagine there being an RFC on you being banned .... and the very first thing you do is post non-public information about someone..... Imagine that!, Obviously no monkeys given inregards to peoples privacy or their behaviour here. –Davey2010Talk 09:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support He suppose not to argue. He suppose to say a sorry to all wikimedians and accept his mistake. A big blow to him. It is not too late to say sorry. If you say sorry i might change my mind.Tbiw (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support This message to Katherine Maher is just creepy and highly suggestive of stalking. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support After reviewing the history, I'm appalled by the long-term pattern of egregious and continual violations of both global policies and the terms of use. While reviewing diffs it's hard not to catch the distinct whiff of troll here, including actions taken while this RFC was already underway. Hence, CommunityExile is the way forward. Given Salsman's long history of creating puppets, stealthy reincarnations are likely to be an issue for some time to come, but this should aid in the process. It has been suggested that T&S look in to this given the severity of the abuse, I sincerely hope they do so. 𝒬𝔔 20:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support This user has wasted the time and resources of multiple communities through disruptive editing and blatantly flouting global policies and the terms of use. Clearly a net negative. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Per above. I am surprised that T&S hasn't banned this user already. SuperGoose007 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Per above. Given by the off-wiki harassment, this looks like the kind of users who deserve the WMF big stick.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussion

  • Sorry in advance for not being 100% comprehensive. I had to skip a lot of things for brevity. –MJLTalk 05:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like he doesn't know how to stop. –MJLTalk 15:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey look at that. James Salsman decides to use his one and only platform tell people that he never has done wrong and was right in every dispute. Oh, and I get to be outed and doxxed even more while he deliberately misgenders me. Of course, he would seek to weaponise my personal life and identity in order to retaliate for this request. If he's willing to do it to me and AG, then I assure you he'll do it to others as well. That's just how he is, and it's why his time in this movement needs to end. –MJLTalk 22:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Salsman's inability to learn from his mistakes is shown again is his response here. Not only he keeps focusing on the personal lives of the editors he disagrees with (19 year old evangelical Christian brony | the admin's neurodiversity | their newfound genderfluidity must keep them from the accountability), which I see as personal attacks, he also defends doxxing another editor. Just because an information is easy to find (I'm sure it wouldn't take long for someone to find my legal name), it doesn't make it any less awful of you to dig it up for others to see, specially after that person has asked you to stop, multiple times. Do you honestly think your statement paints you in any better a light, James? Isabelle 🔔 23:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding I've provided off-Wiki evidence to Base and others regarding James Salsman speaking inappropriately, out of the blue, with a member of the free knowledge movement.: I can confirm that I have seen this evidence, and I agree with MJL's assessment that Salsman's behavior was inappropriate. PiRSquared17 (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confirming as well. --Base (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @James Salsman: It's evidence provided to me by someone who wanted to remain anonymous (especially given your tendency to out editors). That's all there really is to say on the matter. I'm going to be handing that part over to T&S for their review. –MJLTalk 15:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @James Salsman: No, it's not a third party. I thought that was obvious. –MJLTalk 16:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @James Salsman: I'm not going to providing any further details to you. –MJLTalk 16:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would this global ban, assuming it is adopted, apply off wiki? I am specifically interested in whether it amounts to a ban on participating in movement mailing lists such as wikipedia-l. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: If that is a possibility, then I would recommend we do it. –MJLTalk 04:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:James Salsman, you wrote "MJL...hasn't identified any such instances since 2013 or on any projects other than the English Wikipedia." I perceive you as being scrupulously honest to the best of your ability, and I notice that you didn't say something like "I stopped creating additional accounts in 2013 and have only used this one for anything on any WMF-hosted wiki ever since then". That statement would not be true, so of course you didn't say it. I request therefore that you provide a list of links to all of the accounts (regardless of whether you consider them to be "socks" or "legitimate" alternate accounts) that you've used on any WMF-hosted wiki or non-wiki service since 2013. You may omit anything already listed in w:en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nrcprm2026. If you can't remember all the names, then please explain as much as you remember. For example, you might say something like "There might have been one or two others" or "I created about one account a month from 2015 to 2018" or whatever the genuine facts are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:James Salsman, to be perhaps unfairly blunt, your question makes me think that someone's thinking "Lessee now, socking is a violation of the Terms of Use, which is a legally binding contract, so if I can omit legally questionable ones, then I can say that there aren't any!" If that's your main concern, then I want the full list. OTOH, if you're concerned about accounts that are legally questionable for serious reasons, i.e., because you used those accounts to commit possible crimes, then I'd prefer that you just packed up shop and never appeared anywhere around the movement ever again. On the assumption that you mean something in between, why don't you publicly disclose as much as you're comfortable with, describe something about the nature of the ones you don't want to disclose (including, but not limited to, the number and times you were using them), and we'll find a nice Steward that you can provide the names and reasons to via e-mail. Does that sound like an adequate compromise? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:James Salsman, what am I'm requesting from you has nothing to do with anyone else. I want you to be honest about your actions. There can be no double standard with respect to other people because you being honest about your actions does not involve any other people. Right now, it sounds like you don't want to be honest with us about how many accounts you've created, which wikis you've edited with them, and what you were doing with them. I know that at least one of your accounts hasn't edited articles about political hot-button subjects that might offend certain laws that don't apply to your real life (e.g., whether Kashmir is part of India), so I suggest that you stop making excuses and start disclosing honest and accurate information right away. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not interested in associating any editing with my real name any further, for reasons I'm willing to discuss privately with T&S or an uninvolved steward. Wow.. What an understandable concern. If only you cared about how other people felt about their own names. –MJLTalk 07:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sentence doesn't exactly sound like being willing to take responsibility for one's own actions, does it? James, I suggest that you e-mail your list to stewards(_AT_) since you are unwilling to post it publicly. Please post some summary information in public. Right now, people reading this page don't know if you've been hiding two accounts or two thousand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @James Salsman: Leave. Me. Alone. That you refuse to do that even at this stage is exactly why I filed this request. I was basically elected unopposed to a position just below Dog Catcher, and then I ran again only to lose. By nobody's definition am I a w:public figure. As I sit here and write this, I am in the breakroom at work where I make minimum wage (hardly the sign of a societal lynchpin). If I'm a public figure, then so are a lot of average people.
    You, on the other hand, are nothing more than a bully and gadfly of little consequence. Just because you chose to spend 15 years of your life spouting off nonsense and disrupting Wikimedia projects shouldn't have to mean you need to take it out on the only person to ever stand up to you. That you have only proves how desperate you are to win. –MJLTalk 23:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: And he'll only get more desperate as this RfC comes to it's inevitable end. You'd need an extremely misguided steward to not place the global ban on Salsman. Seemplez (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seemplez: Indeed, I am expecting as much. –MJLTalk 18:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @James Salsman: I'm really not sure why you keep trying to play down Scots as a language, that's really not why this RfC was created. You keep saying saying Scots is simultaneously endangered yet spoken by millions of people. Those are mutually exclusive. Scots might not have a whole lot of modern written work but it is very much still a living language. You say Scots isn't recognised by the Scottish Government but that's just untrue. It took me less than a minute to find the Scottish Government's language policy page which recognised Scots along with English, Scottish Gaelic, and BSL. You could even just Google "Official Languages of Scotland" and Google's own infobox will tell you: "Scotland > Official languages Scottish Gaelic, English, Scots". I'm just confused as to why you're attacking a language you claim to want to support on Wikipedia. My hat stinks (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salsman continues to misgender me in this very thread. Every reply at this point is just an attack against me while trying to push the boundaries on what he can freely reveal about me. Wikimedia is my safe and inclusive space where I'm free to express myself and get treated with some level of decency and respect (ie. my preferred pronouns. not mentioning my old username, etc). Salsman is clearly determined to ruin that for me. I understood he would put me on blast for this request, but I have to draw the line somewhere. He has a reckless disregard for my safety and wellbeing as both a member of the Wikimedia movement and the LGBTQI+ community. If he isn't going to disclose his alternate accounts, then he he needs a muzzle. I'm tired of my personal and professional life being trivialised like this by someone who 28 out of 28 editors think should be globally banned. –MJLTalk 05:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeromi Mikhael: Oh, okay. Well it's really 37 now since 9 more people have commented in support. –MJLTalk 16:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MJL: It's unfortunate you closed sco:Wikipedia:Admeenistrators' noticebuird#(en) Partial block discussion, because the opinion of the scowiki community would be important here. I'm confused by the "pay auditors to review Scots Wikipedia". Is this a proposal that Salsman made to have auditors who would be paid out of Salsman's own pocket? In that case, it would seem a rather noble proposal and worth considering. On the other hand, if the proposal is to have the WMF pay for it, it's moronic. [9] isn't nice and I get the impression that Salsman may not be an overly pleasant person. But things like that wouldn't seem to warrant a block or ban. A discussion is never over because you say it is, and Salsman can continue talking on his Twitter and whatnot anyway. So basically what he says there is true, even if it doesn't seem nice or even required to state as it doesn't change his rights to do those things. In the partially censored statement from Salsman on this page, I read "campaigned for and very recently held public office" and I wonder if that means you may have a COI and whether that's what the fuss is about? He also says "As MJL has said, the use of their short last name is not outing" and "The redacted information was published by MJL both on their project user page", this is unreferenced and I don't know exactly what was removed anyway, but I wonder if it's true. (I guess Vermont would be able to see if the redacted information is/was available on-wiki?) I can only guess that Requests for comment/Large scale language inaccuracies on the Scots Wikipedia is also related in some way? I just have so many questions. Salsman doesn't seem nice (and an IBAN would almost certainly be warranted), but the whole case appears to be extremely complex. As a note, to my memory I've personally never had any interaction with Salsman. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, James Salsman has made clear an inability to communicate constructively and a tendency to double down whenever challenged, often in the realm of personal attacks. However, at this point we have multiple instances of deceptive socking and off-wiki problems which are arguably more problematic than the communication issues he had on the Scots RfC. Vermont (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Jazz: And yes, MJL's name was available publicly. The problem with Salsman's comments regarding that are more about him digging it up and using MJL's name for intimidation, rather than it being specifically outing. Vermont (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fix pingVermont (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Fix ping again, apologies. Vermont (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: Pings fixed after the fact don't arrive, pings only work in combination with a new signature. (alternatively you can link the user page in the edit summary, no signature required) Well, I'd support an IBAN based on that. It's unclear to me how the alternative accounts were abused. Diffs would help, there is just so much to go through. Though it seems you won't be needing my support vote anyway and I'm not going to oppose. I thought the "Talk to the press" section on w:sco:Wikipedia:Admeenistrators' noticebuird#(en) Partial block discussion was going to make a clear point against Salsman, but after reading the article the only real problem I find is the blatant copyright violation that is the lead image which doesn't repect the CC BY-SA license for the Wikipedia logo as it is a derivative that also incorporates some Getty stock image and I doubt would be covered by any fair use laws. Wikimedians (like all people) are free to talk to the press, and it's the job of the journalist to filter the crap and hear all involved parties. [10] doesn't seem convincing either. It's all not terribly friendly, but I would be very scared of supporting a global ban because someone is "not friendly". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz and Vermont: I have not disclosed this on-wiki to anyone, but just a day before Salsman addressed me using my old account name, I was removing references to it on wiki (as in actively trying to keep it hidden). It could not be so blatantly obvious to me that Salsman knew that my old username is something I do not like to be discussed, but he still persisted on using it anyways.
As for the talking with Reporters thing, Salsman completely mislead the journalist in question about his contributions to the cleanup. His tool (as told to him by practically every native Scots speaker active on the Discord) is completely worthless and ineffective. I told him not to make it; I told him not to use it. Others told him the same thing. We explained we already had an effective cleanup effort over at WP:SPELL which was initiated by a native Scots speaker, and I explained to Salsman multiple times that Americans like him and me should not be overshadowing those efforts.
Now, with all due respect, I would appreciate we stopped talking about how Salsman came to find my personal information. Alexis, you are basically playing right into his hands in that regard. We're talking about a guy who just last month wrote this to Katherine Maher. Of course the logical thing for him to do during his appeal is try to attack/out me further. –MJLTalk 17:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: but he still persisted on using it anyways
And I would fully support an IBAN for that part, but that's not what this RfC is about. If that were the only thing, I don't think it would be sufficient to warrant a global ban.
As for the talking with Reporters thing, Salsman completely mislead the journalist in question about his contributions to the cleanup.
If true (and I didn't attend the conversation between the journalist and Salsman, so I don't know how he presented his project, in fact, from the article I can't tell if such a conversation ever took place, it could be entirely based on public information), I still think that's mostly on the journalist. The section in the final article seems accurate. If the tool results are ultimately unused that makes that section pointless, but not inaccurate. If anyone wants to pursue a project, even if it seems hopeless, I wouldn't want to forbid them from doing so. They shouldn't get in the way, but if Salsman wishes to waste his time on a tool that may end up completely unused, well.. his time, not mine. We all have pointless hobbies.
Now, with all due respect, I would appreciate we stopped talking about how Salsman came to find my personal information.
I think we can. But as this is a global ban discussion and global bans are not to be taken lightly, I think it's important to try to get to the bottom and do some fact-checking. It may be obvious for those involved, but as a person who isn't involved, I find it more difficult to find a proper justification for a global ban in the opening statement.
We're talking about a guy who just last month wrote this to Katherine Maher.
Hey, that was a rather important side note! You should have mentioned that in the opening statement. That's just creepy, and strongly suggests stalking. What's the current support count? Make that +1. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: That only came to light after I filed my request. That's just the thing with how things have happened here. I filed a request to globally ban a user based off my own experiences with them (and what info was available to me) because that's what I knew about. Then he attacked me again, so other people came forward to push back against him. Then people saw that and shared their own experiences with Salsman. A checkuser was ran on Salsman per offwiki evidence against him, and another account of his was found. This prompted even more people to share their experiences with this user (many are from Scots Wikipedia). While the opening statement started with my own story, I would say that the most compelling reasons to support banning this editor could be found outside of the opening statement.
Either way, as I said in the beginning, I provided off-wiki evidence of Salsman acting worse than that to Base (an uninvolved steward), Vermont, and PiRSquared (both had familiarity with this case). In general, what you see onwiki is only ever half as bad as how it is off of it. If you wanted things fact-checked, you could just have asked one of the two global sysops to verify my claims. –MJLTalk 17:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I can't personally review those off-wiki actions and as a matter principle, I won't vote for anything serious based on something I can't personally review, pretty much no matter who endorses it. But it doesn't matter, you already have my support vote. (and that of countless others) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]