Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Rangeblock for HazemGM

Blocked user HazemGM (talk · contribs) is socking, they essentially admit so here, list of IPs used at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of HazemGM across two ranges - can we get range blocks please? GiantSnowman 17:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

They have been editing within the last 20 minutes as 154.180.42.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 07:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Editing earlier today as 154.180.176.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Also editing today as 41.35.94.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Now at 154.180.194.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Editing in last 10 minutes as 154.180.99.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 17:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

We should also consider a third IP range of HazemGM as well, this IP has began editing the day after GiantSnowman blocked the recently included IP. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we appear to have 1-2 different IPs a day, from two different ranges. GiantSnowman 17:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Rangeblocking 41.35.80.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), I think, shouldn't be too much of a problem, all edits since 17 May surely belong to the sock. But a few of the football editors on Wikipedia know about persistent IP hopping every 24 hours or less. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Now at 41.35.83.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 18:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Currently editing at 154.180.171.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 07:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Two IPs yesterday that I am aware of, the latter one being 154.180.13.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 16:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I've not noticed any edits on my watchlist for a few days - has a range block been implemented or have they finally got the message and just stopped editing? Or is it just my watchlist? GiantSnowman 14:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Randy Kryn - WP:IDHT on edit warring and fringe topics

Randy Kryn has been insisting at WP:FTN that a topic in parapsychology and chaos magic is not a fringe theory at WP:FTN even after being told so by multiple editors, apparently refusing to acknowledge the concept of fringe, accuses others of edit warring while continuing to revert after multiple editors have reverted their edits 1 2, (apparently they didn't notice I wasn't the only one who reverted their changes...)

I'm taking this to WP:ANI because quite frankly if one of the top 200 most prolific editors truly still hasn't figured out what WP:FRINGE is by now, this is far more serious issue of failure to get the point.

They've previously been at ANI, warned and blocked for edit warring before.

My previous interaction with this editor was them re-opening a closed merge proposal citing non-existent policy (or perhaps their own personal standards), then claiming they never read policies so this seems like a pattern of invention of non-existent rules or policies that fit their own personal standards while disregarding community concerns about their edits. - car chasm (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I thought this might happen, because I had left a message at the fringe wikiproject notice board that I was signing off for the evening. So what occurs a few minutes later? This nonsense. The edit war being referred is entirely the editors, as I reverted and asked for a talk page discussion and then....whoo, right into an edit war. And the discussion being referred to is just beginning and has had few comments from other editors. There is way too much wrong in the above (i.e. just to start, my ANI excursion was closed quickly because...the person bringing it was mistaken, and my blocks with Dicklyon occurred in 2015 - maybe eight years of good behavior counts for something) but I don't have time for much more now. Please read the links provided above to see how they have been spun and misdefined. And if I keep typing I'd have less than good-faith things to say about this editor, so will now sign off for real for tonight. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@car chasm: I don't know about the rest of your report, but your extrapolation that Randy Kryn has said he never read policies based off this comment is wildly off-the-mark. You claimed that Randy Kryn cited a guideline (or at least pretended to) in this comment (or maybe in this edit summary?), but it's abundantly clear Kryn did no such thing.
Likewise, this was not a denial of the concept of fringe.
I try to be charitable in my responses to AN/I reports, but really I have no clue how you can so poorly misinterpret things this way without intentionally doing so. I recommend withdrawing this report as the most sensible action (lest you attract further scrutiny for yourself). Though, you should probably apologize to Randy Kryn as well, but I do not find that a likely occurrence, sadly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you must have missed the part in the previous edit where I cited the first sentence of WP:FRINGE, which was directly what they were responding to. Anyone who would like to do so is welcome to read the entire context at WP:FTN if they would like. Or perhaps you'd like to pop over to the page in question and look at it yourself? At any rate, as far as I can tell, I've done nothing wrong here, and so I have no concern about attracting further scrutiny. - car chasm (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@car chasm: I did see your comment Randy Kryn was responding to, but to me it just seemed like he was just disagreeing with you that fringe theory applies to this case and not whether fringe theories exist conceptually.
The logic may or may not be flawed, but that isn't really a conduct problem for a one-off comment. The FT/N thread hasn't finished playing out, so it's yet to be seen whether Kryn can provide actually sufficient evidence that this model is WP:FRINGE or not. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if it wasn't clear the issue I took with that previous edit was that they re-opened a closed discussion with the justification "Undid revision, closed too soon, not enough participation" which certainly seems like something you'd only do if there was an issue with policy. This is a pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing. - car chasm (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

But, it is also less relevant, so I've struck it out from my report. - car chasm (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you striking that part at least. When it comes to Wikipedia:Merging, there really isn't any guideline or policy that controls it. The process is rather informal when attendance is low even if the information page makes it seem otherwise. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ජපස: and @Ad Orientem: as involved editors. - car chasm (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

There is definitely something strange going on here. I am not sure it rises to a need for admin intervention quite yet, but User:Randy Kryn is somewhat uncharacteristically engaging in WP:PROFRINGE argumentation over at WP:FTN in rather surprising ways. He seems to be arguing that Timothy Leary is considered unimpeachably WP:MAINSTREAM within the context of consciousness studies. That does not seem to be the case at all according to reliable sources that we have. However, I'm not sure there is much admins can do excepting that it is weird to have such an established editor making such a misinformed argument. jps (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Quite concerning that this has been brought to ANI. The edit war finished at the 3rd revert, and this wouldn't generally be the venue for that anyway. The rest of the complaint seems to consist of "user disagrees with me and I'm right". Well, I don't really care who is right here, but taking somebody to ANI for being politely wrong is a massive misuse of time, energy and policy. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Randy isn't really being "polite" here, but even so I think that if this ANI report is premature, it is perfectly fine to close this report. However, given that Randy is such a fixture at this place, it is somewhat understandable for a user to think that there is something off here when the rhetoric in the edit summaries and at the noticeboard is so absolutist. jps (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

To explain further, the edit war in question (apparently WP:BRD is a thing of the past) concerns the removal of Category:Timothy Leary (as well as Category:Ram Dass - Dass used both the names Dass and Richard Alpert) from Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. They were both definitely American consciousness researchers and theorists, and have been in the category for a long time (as have other individuals who were removed quickly in a category-disrupting edit run). As either a "fixture" here (call a plumber) or if I were a one-edit newbie, many who know the work of Leary and Alpert would call much of their professional work at Harvard, and their work and writings afterwards, as being that of consciousness researchers and theorists. Mainstream or not has nothing to do with this. In his time at Harvard Leary seems to easily qualify for the category, so I reverted and asked to discuss this on the talk page. And then all hell broke loose and wham, bam, here I am asking to be put into stocks for thinking that a long-term category might just fit enough to hold off on its removal in order to discuss it (We hardly knew ye, WP:BRD). As for bringing me to ANI over this, where are the coffee and donuts? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, "weird to have such an established editor making such a misinformed argument" is a good summary of why I brought this here. It's less over whether or not the topics are fringe (that's what FTN is for) and more about them engaging with the process in a way that's so unconstructive. I mean, arguing on this very board that whether or not something is mainstream has nothing to with whether or not it's fringe? What's to be done about that? - car chasm (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The spin continues. If I was one of those editors who asks for a boomerang then I'd go full kangaroo on this fellow. But I'm not. They quote me above as "arguing on this very board that whether or not something is mainstream has nothing to with whether or not it's fringe?". Where did I say that? What I said is that Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert fit the description and wording: Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. Twisting that around to mean something else seems political in nature. By the way, I've heard a rumor that this entire thing is being discussed off-site somewhere by at least one of the participants - but nobody involved has notified me. Not cool, and doesn't seem like Wikipedian fairness. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"Mainstream or not has nothing to do with this." - this is a sentence from one of your posts above. And you appear to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS now as well about some hypothetical off-site discussion? Either make a definitive accusation or don't. - car chasm (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A sentence taken totally out of context. Again. Making me almost regret I'm not the kind of editor who asks for a boomarang (and if someone else does, I'll defend you against it, but you're stretching the limit of Wikipedian courtesy). I've heard rumors about the off-site discussion but haven't read it (seems you have to be logged-in as a member). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Leary spread the concept of the important role of "set and setting", and that is still current, e.g.:

• Set, Setting, and Psychedelics in 20th Century Psychology
• Set and Setting: Why Preparation Matters
• Set and Setting: A Randomized Study of Different Musical Genres in Supporting Psychedelic Therapy (at NIH.gov!)
• Constructing drug effects: A history of set and setting

... etc. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And please have a look at the tags fringe project editors have added to the page about one of Timothy Leary's main works Eight-circuit model of consciousness since yesterday (notice that the title includes 'model', not theory - it is an encyclopedic article summarized a model about which several books have been written). The fringe wikiproject page is all aglow about how this article should be gone, and about the deletions they have done in categories since yesterday. One of them asked their members to watch for many AfD's. I hope administrators pay attention to the actions of those editors about these subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This, and related issues are currently being addressed at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which is the proper venue for handling these questions. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, so let's move it "in house" so the discussion is tucked away in the place which includes the home turf of the editors who brought this to ANI in the first place. Make accusations about what questions in particular, I really don't know what is being discussed or asked for here, and then only discuss things with the project where accusations are coming from. Sounds like a plan. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that FTN could be a neutral venue for discussing this kind of topic is itself a bit of a Fringe Theory to my mind. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're asserting FTN is not neutral in this area, you've got an uphill climb to make. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a clearly a sceptic magnet! Secretlondon (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there are quite a few users at FTN who seem to want to right the great wrong of people believing in woo. The practical effects of that are that posts there are the equivalent of a bat-sign. I was not the only user to point this out at the recent AfD on the Alderney UFO case. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a requirement to be provide verifiable facts, and not (intentionally or accidentally) push nonsense to our readers. Promoting woo is not factual, it's lying to people. So yes, FTN tends to be very critical when someone finds a thing saying "this woo is real."

On the flip side, you can definitely find discussions where someone asked "is this woo?" and the consensus was "no, just a notable minority view."

You act like people are on some grand crusade to eliminate wrongthink. That's not the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

My perception of this behaviour differs from yours. The Scooby gang all descended on the Alderney UFO article, which really did not say "the woo is real", and wanted it deleted, and this is happening again in this article. My impression is of users who want to restrict access to information as they fear it will lead the gullible astray. This often coincides quite well with WP:FRINGE, but other times less so. Also, it would be good to know that the rumours of off-wiki organisation voiced in this thread are completely false. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Only fair to mention that there was actually a historical "grand crusade to eliminate wrongthink" waged by a paramilitary organization (Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia) against Wikipedia and that it was shut down by the community. To the best of my knowledge however no such disruption is ongoing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that Boynamedsue's 'bat-sign' description of FTN is spot on. However, it's very important to point out that none of the individual editors at FTN are responsible for this. Wikipedia is inherently vulnerable to promotion of fringe ideas, and it's only natural that those most interested to fight this should often share a similar POV (scientific skepticism, which by the way is a very specific POV that in no way represents the general perspective of scientists and other scholars). Yes, this does put some pressure on NPOV, but 1) there is no easy solution to that problem, and 2) it pales in comparison to the problems that we would have without FTN and the editors who are active there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Randy is now edit warring at Eight-circuit model of consciousness, re-adding material that was challenged without adding a WP:RS, and insisting that primary sources are sufficient in violation of WP:V. No matter how prolific an editor he may be, he seems to be showing a complete lack of regard for any of our content policies whatsoever. - car chasm (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Carchasm, a single revert is not edit warring. Randy also immediately went to the talk page to discuss the revert, which Steve Quinn moved to its own section, which can be found here. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to correct the perception by Hey man im josh.

• First I edited, then copy edited that edit, at the article Eight-circuit model of consciousness [3], [4]. Notice in the edit history one of the things I wrote was "Please discuss on talk before reverting per WP:BRD."
• So rather than discuss the edit, Randy Kryn reverted my edit [5]. Notice in the edit history they are saying "reverted, please respect BRD and discuss on the talk page" as if they are taking the initiative on BRD or something like that. At the least it confuses the situation or seems to muddy the waters.
• Then they come to the talk page [6]. Here they make an assertion that "Have reverted your overall full-scale deletion." This is inaccurate, an exaggeration, and not collegial.
• Then I create a new section and reply [7]. The reply is at the bottom of the diff where I say, please revert your edit and so on.
• Kyrn then replies, [8] saying in part what I did "was an entire wholesale deletion which gutted the article." This is inaccurate and an exaggeration again. This is not conducive to collaboration. In the same response he seems to say that my article edit "...presents the entirety of the page." Again if he is referring to my edit in the article then this is inaccurate and exaggeration.
• My last response [9] recounted the three inaccurate statements he just posted. And I referred to them as exaggerations.
• He replied to that [10] and then I didn't see any point in continuing the conversation at that time.

• Also, in a separate Deletion discussion they appear to be engaged in bludgeoning Here. They also seem to go off the rails regarding my ivote [11] calling it wp:revenge and saying we had a "major disagreement" (at Eight-circuits). I didn't see it as a major disagreement nor do I see that discussion as productive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That's still not edit-warring though, is it? Just seems a pretty run of the mill content disagreement. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was edit warring. Please read what I said. And it is not a run of the mill content disagreement. They do not like to cooperate and seem unable to accept other's contributions as valid. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear what perception of mine you are trying to correct. I was pointing out that a single revert is not considered edit warring. Your edit summary, which essentially stated "do not revert without discussion", does not automatically protect your edit from being reverted. They reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO and began a discussion immediately after doing so. It's fine if you want to argue specific points about their editing, but that's not edit warring, that's what's supposed to be done based on WP:BRD. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was edit warring. Please read what I said. And you're overlooking how they were exaggerating during the discussion, making that discussion untenable - that's a behavioral problem. And also, bludgeoning in another discussion. A behavioral problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Car Chasm did not adequately demonstrate part of the impetus for filing:

• Here CC removes a parent category from another category [12]
• Here Kryn reverts [13]
• Here CC removes the category again [14]
• Kyrn reverts [15] calling this edit warring.
• Here the category is removed again by another editor [16]
• Kyrn reverts that edit [17].
• And the faldaral stops with the other editor [18].
• I'm not taking sides on this other than to show how persistent Kyrn can be. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I think this ANI isn't really going to go anywhere. I think it is probably premature and I support closing this thread. For my part, maybe I can think of ways I can communicate better. And my original edit at Eight-circuits may not have been the best decision and it caused upset. I take responsibility for that. I should have opened a dialogue first. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts. So, I very nearly took a leap with a NAC a couple of hours ago, because I really think there is very little more to be accomplished here at the moment aside from maybe a few more reminders about process. But I decided I wanted to look into the interactions at the affected articles a little more closely (having already checked up on most the above diffs and the FTN discussion as this thread progressed over the last couple of days. And I think maybe just some comments will suffice, especially in light of Steve's comments immediately above.

I'll start by being honest that I think this filing was a bit premature, as others have pushed about above. Car chasm, I'm not saying I don't think your concerns are all invalid, but honestly, you didn't appropriately avail yourself of community processes for establishing a firm consensus in favour of your preferred outcome, nor did you wait for the FTN discussion to conclude before coming here. And I again agree with others above that many of your reasons presented for doing so are a little exaggerated or seem to not imply as much AGF as perhaps you could. You're only maybe sufficient reason for bringing this to ANX is the initial claim of edit warring, but it's an edge case at best, and WP:ANEW is where such a report belongs anyway. I appreciate the extra context Steve has provided as to all that, which does bolster the case a little, but I still feel the proper course of action here was something like an RfC and then coming here if Randy did not accept consensus. And I say this as someone who shares some of your concerns about the content in dispute. With regard to at least Eight-circuits article, Randy is certainly the one who is better positioned to invoke BRD. Unless I am missing something obvious, Steve removed a pretty significant chunk of the article, consisting mostly or entirely of content which had been in it for years. That is almost always treated as the B in a BRD analysis, and Randy reverting that is hard to swallow as "edit warring". Steve, to esteemable credit, suggests himself that perhaps that could have been discussed first, and I agree with that assessment. That he didn't is also no biggie, but at this point, I think the ball is in the court of those who want to make these extensive changes. Of course, that said, the actual WP:ONUS/burden of proof is also on Randy to justify retention. Again, simple way forward here: RfC.

Which actually gives me a segueway to what I wanted to say next. I have some direct experience of Randy myself, mainly as a random respondent to a couple of RfCs on content disputes he was party too. I know he can me a little fullsteam-ahead and hard to move off his positions at times: as I recall, I had to join with sentiments from other respondents on at least a couple of occasions to get him to slow his roll just a little. On the other hand, the other things I remember about him are that he is a very skilled editor, generally makes a solid effort to justify his position within policy constraints, and respects consensus if he exhausts his opportunities to change it. I agree there might be a patina of OWN here, but I do believe that not only will Randy drop the stick if you put together a strong enough consensus, but that actually there's almost certainly a wide area of middle ground here that is not being explored as yet, and that this got a little more antagonistic than it needed to be kind of fast. There's clearly discussion to be had here (and again, I think Steve is pointing the way on how to accomplish that). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, some observations about the finer details of the underlying disputes. I'm going to keep these comments short because they get into content rather than behavioural areas (not the purview of ANI), but they do intermingle with the nature of the dispute--and as someone who sits at the intersection of having some background in cognitive science and having a lot of experience editing scientific/MEDRS articles in general on en.wikipedia, I think I might have some brief input that could be of some small value. First, regarding the question of whether Leary constitutes a "consciousness researcher". That is a very nuanced question for our purposes here, coming down (as it must) to an analysis of WEIGHT. On the one hand, absolutely the man has been described as such in RS. But honestly, even going back in time to the heyday of his notable activities (and notoriety), probably this label was used more so in mainstream accounts than in serious academic works: he is not really a serious researcher in the areas of cognitive biopsychology that relate to the exploration of consciousness or subjects like the study of qualia, evolutionary psychology, or computational models of the mind, all of which are topics that the pseudoscience contained in these articles touches upon. Nor is he even a particularly influential name in the serious exercise of the philosophy adjacent to this science.

Car chasm is certainly correct that there is a real concern here that association with terminology that today has a particular attachment to specific fields of inquiry in hard cognitive science runs a serious risk of bootstrapping this content to a status where it may be perceived by the semi-informed reader as something mainstream. When the reality is, most of it lands somewhere between "highly dubious" and "hallucinogen-inspired nonsense". On the other hand, the man is, in a sense, a major influence on the non-clinical discussion of these topics in the mainstream. How do we balance these factors? Well, again, pretty clearly and RfC issue. Or issues, rather, as I think this is, unfortunately, going to take a few sequential discussions to dial in all the language in dispute. Meanwhile, I personally think the content removed from/currently re-added to the Eight-circuit article actually serves to demonstrate how wacky these ideas are, and I think that probably comes across for a lot of readers who aren't already predisposed to psuedoscientific concepts of the mind. But I'm aware I'm not exactly a typical reader when it comes to these articles, and the influence this content could have on a subset of readers just barely into an exploration of neurophysiology and mainstream research models of perception might be greater than I appreciate. But again, consensus for those issues can be established in the relevant articles through normal process (and liberal notices at some relevant WikiProjects, if I may suggest).

Well, just as well I didn't NAC this: not even a fourth of that would have fit into a reasonably-sized results box! But my perspective in a nutshell: it looks like the parties here all have fairly reasonable perspective and a generally productive editorial style. They just missed the first boat on hammering this out constructively. Luckily there's as many of those ferries in the day as one is willing to give themselves. RfC, peeps! Or did I mention that already? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this discussion in a day, and it's like Jack and the Beanstalk, growing and growing. Thanks for the many comments. Now someone else has reverted my edit at the 8-circuit page and the article is back to being all but gutted of full-descriptor comment, so I've asked on the talk page for a fuller reason. The long-term language should be returned and then worked on from there, removing it to the extent its been removed is WP:OWN territory (we all own the page apparently). As for the fringe theory project (and please take note that Leary's model exists as a model, and not a theory - big difference, so I don't know why the fringe project is so involved and afluffle about this), there is no woo in Leary's work being discussed. In the 1950s he was acknowledged as a pioneer in standard personality testing, and then he further explore personality and consciousness in his 8-circuit model. And in reply to the concern that I've accused an editor of revenge voting, yes, I did, and no explanation has been given for the coinkidink of the vote. Anyway, this gets long, so again, thanks everyone, pro and con, for expanding this into an interesting and probably useful discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that, because the 8-circuit page says it's a "model", it doesn't fit the defining first sentence of FRINGE which says the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Does that mean you believe sasquatch, Ayurveda, indigo children, etc. are not under the purview of FRINGE because they aren't explicitly called "theories"? What do you think models are based on? JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The 8-circuit model page is a garbage walled garden consisting entirely of an in-wooniverse description of the model sourced exclusively to its practitioners and bizarre 90s-HTML-coded new-age blogs like "Earth Portals". It should be TNT'd. JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding there is no woo in Leary's work being discussed.

The first four circuits concern themselves with life on Earth, and the survival of the human species. The last four circuits are post-terrestrial, and concern themselves with the evolution of the human species as represented by so-called altered states of consciousness, enlightenment, mystical experiences, psychedelic states of mind, and psychic abilities.^{[citation needed]} The proposal suggests that these altered states of consciousness are recently realized, but not widely utilized. Leary described the first four as "larval circuits", necessary for surviving and functioning in a terrestrial human society, and proposed that the post terrestrial circuits will be useful for future humans who, through a predetermined script, continue to act on their urge to migrate to outer space and live extra-terrestrially.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for not trying a NAC - I believe you've misunderstood the nature of this issue if you think this is about the content dispute, as explained in both my original report and below. WP:IDHT is in the header, not sure how you missed that. - car chasm (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Request - Can someone uninvolved please collapse everything from this comment up to Snowrise's? This didn't go anywhere and I'm not sure why they wrote so much but I don't feel they've added anything new to the discussion. - car chasm (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Question - Why is this at WP:ANI? Why can't the Fringe Theory Noticeboard be the proper forum for an editor insisting on taking the fringe view that Timothy Leary is a serious scholar? Why bring this dispute here? I realize that WP:ANI can sanction User:Randy Kryn, but that hasn't been proposed, and I don't think it is in order anyway. So why are we on this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Answered above, and nothing so far from Randy on this topic has given me the impression he's willing to get the point. Several people have now told him the exact same thing and he continues to insist that the fact that Leary has a "model" and not a "theory" somehow makes it not WP:FRINGE! This is a clear case of WP:IDHT, and RfC or other process cannot resolve it, it is an issue of editor behavior and not about the content dispute. - car chasm (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  A bit unrelated, but this user is persistent and repeating their own views (by not following the policy or guidelines) despite what has been written about the discussion topic on another page, just like what you wrote above. ภץאคгöร 07:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Now a further pile-on? The dispute at Some Like It Hot is that Nyxaros came by, removed two long-term images, won't allow me to put those back, and, even odder, won't allow the addition of the fair-use Some Like It Hot trailer - and I'm the bad guy? I've asked for help on this at WikiProject Film. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't write you are the "bad guy". You recently added these "long-term" files and denied a valid refinement. Instead, you presented your own thoughts and how you think things should be. Although I showed the information page and the guideline, and offered improvement ideas for your additions, I have observed that you have been following a repetitive attitude similar to what other editors have mentioned here. I encourage you to provide reliable info (from a guideline or policy) that supports your views, and to re-read and re-examine the summaries and messages I (and others) have written on talk pages, rather than repeating your views. ภץאคгöร 18:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "... denied a valid refinement." – Does this translate to: "reverted a non-policy-based deletion of content"? – .Raven  ^.talk 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is clear from this comment alone that you are not following the discussion(s) well and not doing much to contribute to this one's conclusion, so why bother with a snarky remark? No one has time for that. ภץאคгöร 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  This section and the other page(s) cited above show why the user ignores the comments of other users and adopts a "my way or the highway" attitude, adding what he wants to pages when he could fix the problems. Partially reverted again, his reason is "no reason on Earth or Wikipedia not to include" and completely ignoring all the messages and discussions. In conclusion, these are just what I and other editor(s) here have observed. I hope the user will try to be more constructive and find common ground with others (for example, by reviewing the messages they received as I mentioned above). ภץאคгöร 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• No, that's not going to happen. We don't hat comments just because you happen to disagree with the assessment contained therein. Nothing I said was not already told to you by at least two people before I commented (with the overall assessment that bringing it here was premature also being reiterated by Robert immediately above: the fourth editor to tell you that). Is Randy clearly wrong about some of the underlying content issues? Yes, I think so. Kind of profoundly, honestly. In fact, I've joined one of the discussions now to tell him as much and add a little bit of extra emphasis to try to get him to moderate his approach. But has he violated policies in such a way that he's going to get sanctioned just for sticking to his guns? No, not as yet. He's verging on tendentiousness, but he hasn't crossed that line. You can't just invoke "WP:IDHT" like a talisman at ANI and expect the community to rush in: editors are allowed to be IDHT with regard to content (i.e. have a different view of content issues and not concede to yours). Only where the IDHT relates to behavioural issues does it become a matter for ANI.

At the point that it was just you, Randy, and another editor (and Randy had BRD on his side, because the version he was arguing for was the longstanding, stable version of the article), your argument for "edit warring" was extremely weak (and involved you violating the policy at least as much as him, if not more). As of now, that has changed, because there are now five of us on the Eight Circuit article talk page telling him his views on the sourcing are not consistent with policy. So now, if he tries to add the content back in (without first forming a new consensus to support that approach), it definitely will be edit warring and tendentious on his part, and I'm sure more of us will be supportive of taking action. But based on what has transpired so far, I'm not sure what you think we would (or even can) do? Especially considering you played the edit war game with him at length to enforce your preferred version, rather than just taking the matter straight to AN3, our hands are a little tied. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As for removing the long-term use descriptors from the page on Timothy Leary's model of personality development, Leary was a pioneer of 1950s personality tests and studies while at Harvard who then came up with the 8-circuit model for personality development and solidification on which full books have been written. Because Leary's fifty-year-old yet still-read and functional model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature doesn't seem to explain why fringe editors are trying to saddle his legacy with flat-Earth no-Moon-landing bigfeets to justify gutting the long-term use page descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

FRINGE explicitly requires minority and fringe ideas to be contextualized with the mainstream stance on those ideas. You said it yourself: ...Leary's [...] model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature. Because Leary's model has only (according to the sourcing in the article) been reviewed significantly by other fringe proponents who subscribe to his beliefs (not to mention co-published with him), it currently fails independence and fails NFRINGE. That warrants at least a major gutting of the article, and if no mainstream academic sources discussing it can be found it should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, as noted above, the concept that "set and setting" matter (which Leary popularized) is still current. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok? Is that an integral part of his 8-circuit model? JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No; that was in relation to the issue of Leary's ideas "being discussed in present-day professional literature", the criterion you just cited for not being FRINGE. And that in turn suffices to qualify him for the category "consciousness researcher"... though, BTW, where is it written that this category excludes FRINGE? – .Raven  ^.talk 05:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

? Read the paragraphs above. We are discussing the eight-circuit model (...Leary's [...] model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature), not random other ideas from Leary. JoelleJay (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Really? Insisting that Leary himself does not fit Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists is sheerly about the eight-circuit model? Then, my goodness, Einstein's putting down quantum physics (because "He does not play dice") should be enough to remove him from those "physicist" categories, right? We can disregard all the useful contributions if we can find one not useful, yeah? – .Raven  ^.talk 21:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

lol, Here's what the 8-circuit page looked like couple of days ago. Here's what it looks like now. Admins, can I revert yet? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This is really just stealth deletion, isn't it? Quite concerning. Boynamedsue (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

We're basically oscillating between two different extremes as this point. Randy seems to lionize Leary and wants an exhaustive discussion of the topic, framing it as if it were a mainstream model built on academic work (it isn't). There is a clear consensus on the talk page that the article as written is far too based upon a couple of WP:PRIMARY works produced by Leary and an associate, and that the content overall lacks perspective and appropriate contextualization. Some have called for TNT of the article, but I see no concrete consensus on the talk page for an extensive blanking, or indeed for any specific courses of action: merely an agreement that the sourcing is inadequate for the volume of the coverage and that there are issues with tone. Advocates on both sides should be showing a little more restraint, imo. My sense of the situation with the sourcing and the impact of relevant policies is that the content will ultimately be radically reduced. But I do believe the subject is ultimately notable, so I'm not sure what a temporary TNT really accomplishes. Far, far superior to have a more neutral article which accurately situates and contextualizes the subject as being the product of new-age psuedo-mysticism filtered through the a quasi-scientific looking framework. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... the article as written is far too based upon a couple of WP:PRIMARY works..." – Are we discussing Psychotherapy [later correction: Psychoanalysis was intended, see below], which heavily cites WP:PRIMARY works by Sigmund Freud and associates? Should we blank that article as FRINGE? After all, as Joelle Jay quoted, "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." – and the only voices in support are thereby, ipso facto, "adherents". – .Raven  ^.talk 06:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Psychotherapy is not a FRINGE topic as a whole, any aspects in the article that are both FRINGE and DUE are contextualized with the mainstream stance, and a scan of the first 50 sources doesn't show a single source by Freud or his associates and very few primary sources. Please familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:PRIMARY. JoelleJay (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please forgive my misnaming Psychoanalysis, which cites Freud as footnotes 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, and 50; leaving entirely aside his "associates" and/or "adherents". – .Raven  ^.talk 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time to read over that 135kb+ article, but if it indeed fails to describe Freudian psychoanalysis as a historical and largely deprecated system for therapy and cites only primary literature from proponents rather than critical analysis from mainstream academia, then yes those portions should be removed. JoelleJay (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

After three medium-longish lede paragraphs, there's one 3-line paragraph saying in part: "Psychoanalysis is a controversial discipline, and its effectiveness as a treatment has been contested, although it retains influence within psychiatry." I'll await your having time to read it and comment. In the meantime, is Freud widely considered "FRINGE"? – .Raven  ^.talk 16:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT applies, as well as WP:OTHERSTUFF. You don't get to demand JoelleJay read & edit a completely unrelated article for their opinion to be valid. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I won't pretend to understand the underlying content issues, but I can read diffs perfectly well and it seems quite clear that the OP's original case was incredibly weak, with a couple of clear misinterpretations being debunked by MJL very early in this thread. IMO, it's a bit concerning that the OP never acknowledged the problems with their evidence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

More stuff

Kryn has a recent history of engaging in tendentious editing. This shows that last December's ANI (as posted by the OP above and here) had no effect on his behavior. The reason for posting this is I think sanctions are needed to interrupt this kind of editing. .

• Most recently they removed the notability tag from "Eight Circuits" [19] which contravenes a strong consensus on the talk page here and here The consensus is that this topic is not covered by independent sources. I requested that he restore the tag [20] but this has been ignored. Also, on the talk page, it is clear he is trying to resist consensus[21]. Also after clear consensus is demonstrated on the talk page, even at this ANI he is asking the Admins if he can revert the page back to his preferred version [22] (in so many words).

• Also recently he has been editing tendenitously at "Some Like It Hot." This dispute has been mentioned in this ANI [23], [24].

-Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [25] with the rationale: "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)

-Kryn reverts misrepsenting Nyxaros rationale in the edit history [26].

-Nyxaros reverts [27] pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."

-Kryn reverts [28] trying to change the nexus of the issue without being grounded in WP:PAG.

-Here Kryn restores [29] image and trailer.

-Here [30] Nyxaros removes the trailer and writes "You forgot the talk page discussion AND added unsourced "Faro Island Film Festival" awards (+not notable)? Do not own."

-Here Kryn reverts again [31].

There is no reason for Kryn to keep editing this stuff back in without discussion, when it has been pointed out this is a policy or guideline issue. Obviously, Nyxaros is trying to keep this page in agreement with WP:PAG. And for insight into this - see the talk page discussion Talk page discussion. Also, Kryn does avoid the bright line of 3RR but edits the article to their their preferred version over the period of days.

• As recently as May 18 he has engaged in tendentious editing at Witchcraft.

Here he takes it right up to the line with three reversions:

- First [32],

- Second [33], (Here he cites BLP, but not based on the actual guideline, rather based on knowing "many witches, all fine people [and]....and makes Wikipedia, in its voice, demean hundreds of thousands of individuals and readers who identify as witches.")

-Third [34]

Also, as noted on the talk page, apparently he was editing against consensus [35], [36]. :Also, it appears a group of editors keeps this article in agreement with policies and guidelines, according to those diffs. Here [37] he is admonished to "Read sources and seek consensus on talk. This is about the worldwide definition, not modern redefinitions as found in new religious movements like Wicca."

• Regarding Cliffs at Étretat (Moscow), on May 14 Kryn recieved feedback on his talkpage [38] that says 'm not saying it's not a good gallery, what I am saying is that it is wholly unsourced. And please, as per WP:BURDEN, and please also see the 2nd point in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. This pertains to kryn's editing behavior on this article.

Here an editor adds a tag noting that only one source is used in the entire article [title=Cliffs_at_] [39] which contains sixteen images.

Here Kryn removes that tag [40]

here the same editor removes images from the page due to lack of reliable sourcing. [41]

Here Kryn restores the images in protest [42]

Here the editor removes the images again [43] and explains: I am saying it is wholly uncited, this is wholly WP:OR, and has been explained to you, as per WP:BURDEN, re-adding without providing a valid reference is disruptive editing.

And there it stops. However, this again shows behavior that is not collaborative.

I can't see going back further than this. There is also what has been posted above [44]. In any case, the reason for posting this is to show that Kryn unpredictably engages in disruptive editing. It seems from the above, there is no set pattern other than it happens. Hence, I am proposing a sanction of 1RR for a period of one month to dissuade engaging in this behavior over time. Additionally, they can continue focusing on regular editing that doesn't involve conflict. I am sorry to say that random editors should not have to endure this type of behavior.---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion (Randy Kryn - WP:IDHT on edit warring and fringe topics)

> "Witchcraft... " – where Kryn reverted the addition of "usually to cause harm" from "Short description|Practice of magic". For some reason I recall what Janet Farrar wrote in an open letter after she and Stewart Farrar had been resettled in rural Ireland for a while: don't worry about persecution, you'll be welcome as a healer and herbalist since doctors are distant and dear [expensive]... but you'd better know where the hemorrhoid-wort grows!

> "Cliffs at Étretat (Moscow)... Here an editor adds a tag noting that only one source is used in the entire article.... Here Kryn removes that tag...." – You omit what Kryn [correctly spelled] notes there: "removed onesource tag (visual arts pages reach notability on one museum source, and this is already covered by the refimprove tag)"; IOW, the tag saying "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." remains. He removed what amounts to either duplication of message, or misplaced message if it referred to notability. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your input. I think the other editor was emphasizing that there was only one source for the whole page - which consisted of a number of images not applicable to that one source at that time. So, I think it is important to note that the page was lacking sources at that time. Basically, it was Kryn's interpretation of the tags that "onesource" wasn't needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the pre-existing refimprove tag already addressed that need, yes. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Raven:: I don't think the existing reimprove tag already addressed that need. I think in this instance it was important to emphasize that only single source existed. And I think the reimprove tag doesn't clarify that there is only a single source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The pre-existing refimprove tag literally said, verbatim: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." If this doesn't address your "I think it is important to note that the page was lacking sources at that time", no number of tags could have done so. What the refimprove tag has over the onesource tag is that adding one more source, so now there are just two, won't make it obsolete and irrelevant. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Point taken. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a nuanced case and I'm inclined to agree it is weak tea to imply behavioural misconduct on. But purely for the sake of discussion, it is worth noting that whatever low bar the SNG may employ, said SNG only offers presumed notability/temporary obviation of the requirement to show significant coverage in reliable sources: every article must still establish compliance with WP:N/WP:GNG ultimately. And one short paragraph worth of discussion on the informal website catalogue for a museum is clearly not getting that job done, so just about any tag reflecting the shortfall of sourcing there would be appropriate, imo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, then, isn't it nice that there already was such a tag, which wasn't removed? – .Raven  ^.talk 05:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's not miss the forest for the trees here: I think Steve's point in raising attention regarding this tag-removal behaviour is that (no matter how you parse the necessity for / possible redundancy of the tag) the removal feels a little reactionary, and possibly part of a pattern of defensiveness of certain content on Randy's part. Now, the reason I don't view that argument as particularly compelling is that we see evidence on that very same article of Randy giving way and ending the revert cycle once particular policy language is invoked. So taken together, the activity there is not great evidence of a behavioural issue that the community needs to restrain. That said, tedious and repeated nitpicking over the applicability of tags can be a sign of a deeper issue. I just don't think the case has been made here that the overall package of behaviours is problematic to the point of needing a sanction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with much of your paragraph; I also agree with Randy on the redundancy of the 2nd tag. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This is long past the point where it's useful to anyone attempting to use this noticeboard, essentially. Please discuss the policy questions in an appropriate place such as WP:VPPOL. There might be something useful to the question of whether Randy Kryn deserves sanction in this collapse box, but I'd recommend that if you think there is, you make a short note of it below the box. Izno (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

> "Eight Circuits...." – I especially enjoyed Joelle Jay's remark: "'The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.' I think Wilson, Alli, et al fall squarely in the realm of 'adherents'." The same argument could be made against the Theory of Relativity, or Evolution, or Plate Tectonics, etc.: everyone who supports them is an "adherent" and therefore not verifiable or reliable. What a boon to FRINGE! > "Some Like It Hot..." - Pics were deleted without policy reason (WP:TRIVIAL addresses other issues, not how many relevant pics belong in an article); Kryn restored them. This is the [WP] Way. – .Raven  .talk 05:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I never cited WP:TRIVIAL. Neither did the editor in that diff. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC) You wrote, "Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [209]"  [underline added]; since WP:TRIVIAL doesn't apply, on what policy basis were the pics of that film deleted from the article about that film? – .Raven  .talk 06:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Raven's question answered here and here. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC) That section is closed, so I can't reply there. JoelleJay says: "Nyxaros reverts pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD". At the link cited (your "209" above), Nyxaros's edit comment was "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)." 1) I don't see IMGDD mentioned in that. 2) WP:IMGDD says things like "Place images in the section to which they are related" and "Don't add images that are not relevant." 3) I don't see how that mandates the removal of images that ARE "related to the film" as Nyxaros admits, thus ARE relevant to an article about it. – .Raven  .talk 17:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC) IMGD is mentioned here by Nyxaros. And that would be diff 203 in my original post about this (not 201). I think it would be best to ask @Nyxaros: about this (I just pinged them). However, I will take a stab at this. I think "related" means peripherally, incidentally, or tangentially related. This does not mean they are necessarily relevant pertaining to the topic. To me, there does seem to be a distinction. Also, WP:IMGDD discourages overuse of images in the article saying: "Don't use images or galleries excessively." Also, WP:GALLERY says "Wikipedia is not an image repository..." and that indiscriminate collections of images are discouraged. I paraphrased there - this "definition" also includes galleries. At minimum discussion should take place to weigh relevance by consensus, rather than impetuously adding images to the article. And it appears to me that Nyxaros was trying very hard to adhere to WP:PAG---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC) So, not the original diff we'd been discussing. It sure would have helped to state or link that earlier, when the claim about the edit-comment was made. (This is on JoelleJay, not you.) Over and over, Randy has tried to take issues to talkpages rather than to competing edits; is it just barely possible that if you folks had tried meeting him on that level and discussed what changes you wanted and why (in specific words, not just page-links which lead to multiple different statements of which most aren't relevant), you might have persuaded him rather than having such a conflict? Successful attorney Gerry Spence wrote a book, How to Argue and Win Every Time, which suggests getting your opponent to want to agree with you. It's a great book, and I recommend it. For everyone. – .Raven  .talk 22:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC) For reference, this is the diff sequence in question: -Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [201] with the rationale: "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs) -Kryn reverts misrepsenting Nyxaros rationale in the edit history [202]. -Nyxaros reverts [203] pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." And here is the dispute: You inexplicably interpret Steve Quinn's use of the word "trivial" in diff 201 to be an (unlinked, uncapitalized) invocation of the AfD essay WP:TRIVIAL, which it seems you believe is a policy You dismiss his argument on the basis that WP:TRIVIAL "addresses other issues" When Steve Quinn says he never cited WP:TRIVIAL, you quote diff 201 to imply he is lying When others explain to you that "trivial" is an English word and not just a wikipedia shortcut, you demand Then where's the policy mandating the "edit [ing] out [of]  trivial images"? I quote diff 203 two items down from diff 201, which helpfully not only provides the info page WP:IMGDD where relevant policy is linked, but also demonstrates that Nyxaros had referenced this page in their edit summary Quoting two diffs from the same small subsection regarding the same edit series is apparently just too complex to follow along JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Inexplicably you misstate your case: "3. When Steve Quinn says he never cited WP:TRIVIAL, you quote diff 201 to imply he is lying" – No, I quoted Steve himself, not (then) his diff of that edit by User:Nyxaros. Only later did I quote that diff's edit-comment, after *you*, JoelleJay, said Nyxaros had cited WP:IMGDD... which was nowhere in that diff's edit. Then Steve said you were referring to a different diff, and I commented that it would have been nice if you'd so indicated at the time. > "Quoting two diffs from the same small subsection regarding the same edit series is apparently just too complex to follow along" – Try, paraphrasing a different diff than the one being discussed, and not indicating the fact (as by attaching the link), makes it seem like a misquote or misattribution. The same would happen if the references were two different sections of the same article, two different areas of the same book, two different books by the same author, etc. Failing to indicate a change of context or referent is a failure of the writer, not the reader; and mocking the reader for not reading your mind to realize your change (or know to which diff/section/area/book you'd changed focus) is an attempt at burden-shifting, with insults on top of it. Neither civil nor honest. How disappointing. – .Raven  .talk 04:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC) If you cannot recognize from context that "diff 201" etc. should be read as the item in the list quoted above with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 201 etc., then you lack the competence and collaborative capacity to participate here. I did not say that Nyxaros had cited IMGDD, nor did I paraphrase anything; I quoted the item in the list with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 203. Your statement Then where's the policy mandating the "edit [ing] out [of]  trivial images"? does not restrict citation of this "policy" to diff 201 itself, to discussion of diff 201, or to any of the diffs and discussions by Steve Quinn at all; I could have eliminated the green quoted text and my answer would have been just as appropriate (as further evidenced by @Redrose64's comment). My inclusion of the quote was a nod at how utterly ridiculous your question was considering the text *you* quoted was just two items above the answer to your question. Stop wasting people's time with captious, misguided, and irrelevant sniping. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC) "diff 201" is not mentioned at WP:AN#Request an Admin, which was where Steve had sent me with his above comment "Raven's question answered here and here." I came back from there, mentioned the absence of the purported edit-comment from the diff that Steve had cited after "trivial images". Steve then pointed to a different diff. To that I replied, "So, not the original diff we'd been discussing. It sure would have helped to state or link that earlier, when the claim about the edit-comment was made. (This is on JoelleJay, not you.)" AFTER that was cleared up, you began suggesting I should have known it beforehand, retroactively as it were, and NOW you say, "If you cannot recognize from context that "diff 201" etc. should be read as the item in the list quoted above with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 201 etc., then you lack the competence and collaborative capacity to participate here." As for "context" – the exchanges between Steve and me had the context of the diff I quoted Steve citing. The paraphrase of Nyxaros you posted on WP:AN neither attributed it to Steve's earlier text on this page nor included that cite/diff. Once again: when a writer fails to include enough information for readers to identify their source, that is the writer's failing, not the readers' for not mind-reading. Your continued attempt at burden-shifting is now also "WP:ICANTHEARYOU". – .Raven  .talk 01:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Your question was this: You wrote, "Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images" [underline added]; since WP:TRIVIAL doesn't apply, on what policy basis were the pics of that film deleted from the article about that film? The quotation you provided is wholly irrelevant to answering the question you asked as the P&G basis is self-evident in the edit summary accompanying that quote. Everyone else understands that P&G-based edits can be made without explicitly citing the P&G shortcut in an edit summary, because long-term editors are expected to be competent enough to recognize P&G rationales without ALLCAPS links. If an editor does not recognize paraphrased P&G and requests the justification for an edit, it is assumed they want a link to the relevant page, not for another editor to point out precisely which word in an edit summary is intended to be a shortcut to that page. So your expectation that all subsequent discussion would be directly tied to that specific diff is nonsensical. It is no one's fault but your own that you decided use of the word "trivial" must mean the author is citing WP:TRIVIAL; and then when disabused of this apparently made the illogical leap to believing that a) some other word in that particular diff/commentary must be covertly citing a policy shortcut, and b) everyone would read your mind and realize you were expecting the policy justification to be from that diff. That you also somehow failed to notice that an edit summary containing an ALLCAPS reference to P&G rationale, concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201, actually was provided just two items below diff201 (which again, you quoted, so forgive us for assuming you also read the two sentences directly after it), is utterly beyond explanation. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC) > "an edit summary ... concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201" – Was not, however, itself the 'exact same' edit summary as in diff201. Your argument presumes that if diff_A and diff_B both "concern" content_X, then anyone who has seen diff_A has also seen diff_B... perhaps through some same-'concern' auto-linking feature? This is clearly, obviously, blatantly not the case. So clearly, obviously, etc., that it takes a great deal of disingenuity to make (then keep making) that argument. By the way, you seem not to have noticed that as old ANI sections with link numbers are archived, the remaining sections have their link numbers lowered; the Nyxaros diff links posted by Steve are now in the low 100s. – .Raven  .talk 08:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC) "an edit summary ... concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201" – Was not, however, itself the 'exact same' edit summary as in diff201.Your argument presumes that if diff_A and diff_B both "concern" content_X, then anyone who has seen diff_A has also seen diff_B... Again, being in any edit summary anywhere was not a prerequisite for answering the question of what the policy basis is for removing trivial images, which is what you asked. Why would it even matter whether Nyxaros explicitly provided a policy shortcut when they summarized the relevant P&Gs? And even though an edit summary diff was irrelevant, of course I expected you to recognize I was quoting the statement two sentences down from the one you quoted, because it was part of a very brief, tightly-linked temporal sequence that Steve Quinn included in his summary of Randy Kryn's other conflicts--a summary you clearly had read based on your address[ing] each of the four specific claims [SQ] made about "tendentious editing" by Randy Kryn. Do you need me to link to that diff too or can you figure it out from here? JoelleJay (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC) > "Why would it even matter whether Nyxaros explicitly provided a policy shortcut when they summarized the relevant P&Gs?" – In the diff under discussion at that time, Nyxaros's edit comment was "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)"... which could easily be the phrasing of an ad hoc argument, as it neither cites policy nor indicates that it is "summarizing" policy. Indeed, you have mocked the idea that the word "trivial" might be in reference to WP:TRIVIAL, but now you're turning 180° by arguing that anyone could or should know this phrasing referred to a policy. Nice rhetorical footwork. – .Raven  .talk 02:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC) "Where in the specific wording of this specific diff commentary is the editor invoking a policy justification" was not your question. Your question didn't even require that the author had intentionally referenced policy in any diff; just the existence of a policy basis for the referenced action would suffice regardless of the reason for doing it. I mocked the idea that the word "trivial" might be in reference to WP:TRIVIAL because no one would be so clueless as to use an utterly unrelated AfD essay section as a rationale for removing an image, so why would you even think that was an option. Or do you just assume all words in an argument are secret shortcuts? JoelleJay (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC) > "to use an utterly unrelated AfD essay section as a rationale"  [emphasis in original] – Congratulations, you have just restated what I (more gently) said three days earlier, "deleted without policy reason (WP:TRIVIAL addresses other issues, not how many relevant pics belong in an article)". – .Raven  .talk 06:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC) You thought there was more than a 0% chance that the word "trivial" in that exchange referred to WP:TRIVIAL, while at the same time ignoring the rest of the diff/comment actually documenting the rationale AND the followup diff/comments that literally do cite the shortcut for that rationale. JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC) No point my answering someone who keeps playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. – .Raven  .talk 22:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Raven, first I am posting this link to the discussion page on "Some Like It Hot" [45]. This was in my original post. So I have to agree that discussion might have been better. But my experience of discussion with him on the "Eight circuits" talk page seemed to indicate he was not willing to move off his position, or compromise, no matter what. See the "Discussion" section on that page [46]. I'll have to go back and see if we had linked to too many guidelines and policies in that discussion - which I have recently noticed Randy does not relate to (after I posted this). I think it is important to be accommodating if that is possible. Also, a caveat. The discussion does not start out in a good way during mine and Randy's initial interaction. We have since mended fences about that interaction. So after this, a more elaborate discussion takes place. Notice there is a 10 hour passage of time between the initial discussion and Shibbolethink's comment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC) One more thing, it seems difficult for editors to be "heard" in their interactions with Randy. So, this does wear down editors. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC) You might have tried bringing THAT issue (too) directly to Randy before bringing it to 3rd parties. Tell me, if someone has a gripe about you, would you rather they tell you about it first, last, or somewhere in the middle? This certainly isn't an RfC, but WP:RFCBEFORE has good advice. – .Raven  .talk 04:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Raven Yes. Good point. I would rather someone tell me about it first. In light of this and other considerations I have withdrawn my proposed sanction. Also, I appreciate the conversations we have had. However, I think, for the most part, I will bow out of this section. Hopefully that is OK with you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Sure. I'm glad this was an educational experience! :) – .Raven  .talk 01:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Well, it is interesting how it didn't get past you that, for me, "this was an educational experience" without me saying that. Kudos! ---01:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) The same argument would have been made for all of those topics during whichever periods of time they were controversial minority views. They are currently mainstream and so we do not treat them as FRINGE topics. If you do not understand the definition of FRINGE used on wikipedia you can start a thread at the Tea House or FTN, but re-explaining it to you here is not productive. JoelleJay (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC) > "The same argument would have been made for all of those topics during whichever periods of time they were controversial minority views." – IOW, following your preferred process those would have been declared FRINGE theories — although they were more correct than "majority" views, as showed by further research (and "paradigm changes" as the older generation faded away while younger, more flexible minds took over). Right? – .Raven  .talk 08:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC) .....yes, if we were writing WP articles at the time those theories were considered by reliable mainstream academic sources to be fringe (or more correctly alternative formulations with minority support), they would be treated as FRINGE/given appropriate weight and context. As is prescribed by WP:FRINGE/ALT. The ECM has at no point been supported by mainstream scholarship in the areas it purports to contribute, and in fact has been entirely ignored by it, so coupled with it clearly not being an alternative theoretical formulation it must be treated on WP as the pseudoscience it is. JoelleJay (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC) The point here is that nobody is asking for this article to be given any prominence whatsoever at the article on Consciousness. It is simply being suggested that enough coverage exists for an article to exist outlining the theory. These are quite different arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Agreed. Thankfully, it looks as if discussion on the talk pages is starting to turn towards an approach which accounts for that distinction. SnowRise let's rap 18:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Fringe topics are not notable if they cannot be contextualized by mainstream sources, so the suggestion that "enough coverage exists" for notability is false. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry Joelle, but even as someone new to this discussion by way of this ANI filing, and who has thus only had a couple of days to look into the sources, I can see that this is plainly not true. There are at least dozens and potentially hundreds of WP:RS which establish the WP:Notability of this topic. Not all of them discuss the topic in depth, and fewer still come from the field of academics which this psuedoscience apes, but contrary to what you've implied above a few times, nothing in WP:NFRINGE (or the the related WP:FRINGELEVEL) requires that they be. The closest anything in the policy gets to that assertion is "While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research". And aside from that, there are some academic treatments of this work, as google scholar reveals. I'm not saying that care will not be needed to keep the content tonally appropriate to prevent the article from presenting Leary/Wilson's ideas as legitimate consensus science--extreme care will be needed to that end. But there are far too many sources to credibly argue that this topic is not notable or can't be appropriate contextualized for the reader, imo. A significant reduction and restructuring of the content will be necesary, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not advisable here. SnowRise let's rap 23:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. If we do not have independent non-FRINGE RS describing how ECM fits in with the mainstream, the article cannot possibly meet the requirements at FRINGE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, but the conclusion that you reach at the end there is just clearly not found in the policy itself, and is pretty massively inconsistent with the vast number of articles we have on psuedoscientific topics that can't be "described in terms of how they fit in the mainstream", because they have no proper role in mainstream science (and yet are still notable topics that it serves our readers to have articles about). If your rule were actually found in WP:FRINGE (and it isn't), then we would have thousands less articles on various types of snake oil, conspiracy theories, and psuedoscience. Again, FRINGE is express about what is and is not required: coverage in scientific literature is not mandatory, even for science-adjacent woo, but rather we are constrained in how we can describe such topics in Wikivoice. But the absence of such sources does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that we therefore jetison the entire article as impossible to write. That's just not how notability/inclusion criteria work on this project, even for controversial or fringe topics. Meanwhile, as to all the portions of the policy that you selectively quoted, pulling them out of their full context, there's still not a single one of them with policy considerations that cannot be met with the substantial number of sources available in this instance. And with the exception of the sources Randy was advocating for (which we've now collectively pushed back against as the primary basis for the article), all of the sourcing is WP:INDEPENDENT. SnowRise let's rap 01:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC) How do you propose we neutrally cover a (hypothetical) FRINGE concept that is only discussed by FRINGE sources? We absolutely should jettison an article if it cannot be contextualized with the mainstream, I don't know how it could be any clearer from The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. Note that I am not saying this absolutely is the case for ECM, I said if it is then the article should not be retained (and that the sourcing before @TrangaBellam's edits was severely inadequate). If you have found mainstream RS that discuss ECM in-depth and describe its level of acceptance within the relevant mainstream fields, then go ahead and post the links. What I got out of google scholar were some articles (in fields related to ECM only to the extent that the margins of any field can engage with any vague unempirical system of mystical precepts) providing uncritical coverage of the idea (like one in media ecology that seems to operate entirely within Leary's cosmology), and a good number of unreliable occult books from people who subscribe to such things. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC) I also checked out Google scholar and came up with the same results as JoelleJay. There doesn't seem to be anything useful there.Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC) > "What I got out of google scholar were some articles (...) providing uncritical coverage of the idea (like one in media ecology that seems to operate entirely within Leary's cosmology), and a good number of ... books from people who subscribe to such things." – Absent pejoratives, this seems to say "Yeah, GS had sources supporting Leary, but therefore I reject them." – .Raven  .talk 03:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Indeed! Because that is what FRINGE tells us to do: notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. emph mine JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC) By that logic, Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and the Heliocentric Model could never have become NON-Fringe, because "the proclamation of their adherents" would always have been dismissed out of hand, and they would have continued to be judged only by their doubters' statements. – .Raven  .talk 00:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC) So you still haven't actually read FRINGE, in particular the section distinguishing it from alternative formulations. Or maybe you just don't understand how scientific consensus works. JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC) If every person/publication that "supported" or "adhered to" those theories had been disregarded under your proposed rule, that means they would not have been regarded as forming a consensus. That appears to be how you think scientific consensus should work. – .Raven  .talk 01:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC) That's not a "proposed rule"; if you haven't caught on yet (and this would actually explain a lot), the green text indicates a direct quote. Anyway, you still haven't read fringe/alt, and you're seemingly unaware that scientific consensus changes based on mainstream publications demonstrating empirical evidence. A "fringe adherent" is defined based on how little their fringe idea receives critical support from within the larger academic field. If the fringe idea eventually receives empirical validation, there will be far more "adherents", resulting in the fringe idea being considered not fringe and consequently the "adherents" will just be "mainstream". JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC) You'd said Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, the Heliocentric Model, would properly have been ruled "fringe" back when they had "minority support". The rule you're proposing is that a theory/model can be ruled "fringe" (and all its supporters and adherents likewise dismissed) before it has actually been debunked (which likewise requires reliable sources discussing it, and presenting factual disproof/s). That's how the Church treated the Heliocentric Model, hence Bruno's and Galileo's trials... but that's not how science works. Where are your RS citations of factual disproof? Waving your hands doesn't count. – .Raven  .talk 08:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Read what I wrote again (emph added): if we were writing WP articles at the time those theories were considered by reliable mainstream academic sources to be fringe (or more correctly alternative formulations with minority support), they would be treated as FRINGE/given appropriate weight and context. As is prescribed by WP:FRINGE/ALT. The ECM has at no point been supported by mainstream scholarship in the areas it purports to contribute, and in fact has been entirely ignored by it, so coupled with it clearly not being an alternative theoretical formulation it must be treated on WP as the pseudoscience it is. But the statement holds true regardless that Wikipedia reflects what the mainstream consensus is, and if the mainstream regards a hypothesis as fringe, or the hypothesis is so obviously in conflict with basic natural laws that no one in the mainstream even bothers to acknowledge it, we faithfully represent that consensus by noting the hypothesis is fringe or just not covering it at all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC) > "... if the mainstream regards a hypothesis as fringe, or the hypothesis is so obviously in conflict with basic natural laws...." – Again, where in that article are RSs cited for either conditional? – .Raven  .talk 03:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC) FRINGE-compliant RS weren't cited at all. That's why it was blanked. And if you're really going to argue ECM is not self-evidently wacko garbage then this discussion is over. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Your problem in the first place is declaring the topic "fringe" without it having been debunked (factually disproved) as had, e.g., Phlogiston theory (but not Relativity, despite many thinking it wacko garbage*). To say "self-evidently" is hand-waving, even WP:OR since you cite no RSs. Where's the disproof? – .Raven  .talk 06:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Hypotheses that rely on a natural law not existing are clearly FRINGE even if they aren't debunked. Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. JoelleJay (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC) 1) What "natural law" does the eight-circuit model of consciousness violate? 2) So labeling and categorizing Relativity as Grundsinnlosigkeit, without justification by experimental disproof, was the right move, eh? 3) You think "the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible"? Have you never heard of Newton's First Law of Motion? Escape velocity? Cosmic inflation? Eternal inflation? Ohhhh, you conflate such motion with a machine that tries to exploit such motion... and thereby slows it down. 4) And you think you understand science. – .Raven  .talk 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC) ... the text by W. Rauschenberger (Frankfurt), titled “Anti-Einstein,” clearly deserves the label “most cynical.” ... He uses the German term Grundsinnlosigkeit (i.e., complete absence of basic sense).... He surmises that “logic and reason are apparently too simplistic and boring to satisfy people”.... – Arguments remarkably similar to those made here. – .Raven  .talk 07:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Should we also blank or delete Phlogiston theory and Ptolemaic astronomy? Astrology? Alchemy? – .Raven  .talk 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Please stop playing (?) dumb. If you can't understand the difference between discussing a fringe idea in the context of mainstream and discussing a fringe idea without that context, you shouldn't be contributing to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC) > "discussing a fringe idea in the context of mainstream" – But this is not what was done to the article. See above: lol, Here's what the 8-circuit page looked like couple of days ago. Here's what it looks like now. Admins, can I revert yet? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC) This is really just stealth deletion, isn't it? Quite concerning. Boynamedsue (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — and — The point here is that nobody is asking for this article to be given any prominence whatsoever at the article on Consciousness. It is simply being suggested that enough coverage exists for an article to exist outlining the theory. These are quite different arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC) If a bit more attention had been paid to getting straight what the opponent's argument actually is, this wouldn't look so much like a collection of Straw Man fallacies. – .Raven  .talk 22:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC) The main person in need of the advice in your last sentence, is you. Also re: "opponents", please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. --JBL (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC) > "The main person in need of the advice in your last sentence, is you." – IOW, "tu quoque" ? Sure, I'll take that advice. Which doesn't in any way negate my point above. Let neutral readers decide. > "Also re: 'opponents'" – see the definition of that word: 'One who opposes another; one who works or takes a position against someone or something; one who attempts to stop the progress of someone or something.' If being or having opponents were forbidden on Wikipedia, no-one would be allowed to comment "Oppose" (or its opposite, "Support") on RfCs or other discussions. The policy WP:BATTLEGROUND itself refers to "those with whom you have a disagreement" and "if they hold a point of view with which you disagree" — but then advises how to behave toward them. That by no means denies the occurrence of opposition here, it just guides conduct in that situation. – .Raven  .talk 03:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Not playing then, I guess. Please find something better to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC) You're right, I'm definitely not joining in the game. – .Raven  .talk 00:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• In retrospect, I think the Proposed Sanction process was derailed by the gargantuan wall of the off-topic text, which is now hatted by this box. I did participate, but I should not have allowed the derailing of the process to happen in the first place. I take responsibility for participating and allowing it to happen. My original proposed sanction should either be modified to a formal community warning or dropped. If I decide to propose a sanction I will post here, hopefully within the next 24 hours. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• I did further reading of the text that remains outside the hatted portion of this ANI. It appears that there is no consensus pertaining to whether the issues merit an ANI. Also, there is no consensus for proposed sanctions. In light of this, I am dropping the idea that any proposed sanction is appropriate. Also, I note that Softlavender has posted sound guidance below for how to proceed. If there are no objections, I request that this ANI thread be closed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Proposal: Could everyone go back to following standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as BRD, dispute resolution, and avoidance of edit wars? And if problems arise the correct next steps are either WP:RFC or usertalk-warning and then reporting at WP:ANEW if EW persists. Note that even a slo-mo edit war can be reported to ANEW.

  Wikipedia is really very simple when those steps are followed. And what prevents all of this ANI reporting are article-talk discussions based on sources and wiki policies, and if stalemates are reached there then RFC.

  I say all of this because what we actually seem to have in this entire thread are a series of content disputes in which a number of people (not just the named editor) are failing to do these very simple steps. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Support, per obvious. – .Raven  .talk 01:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Propose one month 1 RR for Randy Kryn

Please ivote "support' or "oppose". Also please see discussion section below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• I withdraw my proposed sanction. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• oppose The main problem here is the fact this even being discussed at ANI. I think that this a case of wikilawfare in a content dispute. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Content disputes, and Kryn seems to be following policy better than his accusers. – .Raven  ^.talk 08:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this seems too heavy-handed for what appears to be a content dispute. Also, it's 'Kryn', not 'Kyrn'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I think this works, as it's a fixed time frame and addresses the issue of editor behavior, which seems to have persisted since at least the last time Kryn was brought to ANI. I don't think it's overly harsh either, most editors voluntarily end up abiding by a de facto 1RR almost all of the time anyway. - car chasm (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral, torn between realizing that this editor doesn't think his edits stink while at the same time am kind of surprised that every one of the edits being pointed out are actually pretty good and have built the encyclopedia in a pretty good direction. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. There are definitely issues here, largely with regard to Randy refusing the drop the stick, which have the potential to become truly disruptive. But in the current cluster of content disputes over Leary, the mishandling of the situation cannot be put at Randy's feet alone: the edit warring in particular has not been unidirectional by any stretch of the imagination, nor has he been the only party stretching the reading of policy or indulging in an overly-simplified analysis of the sources. As far as I can tell, the entire set of disputes has been characterized by some gung-ho attitudes all around. Randy happens to be mostly alone on one side of the content end of those disputes, but the 'other side' hasn't respected WP:EW any better than he, and to the extent there are any issues with WP:LISTEN, they too are shared by both sides. I don't want to downplay Randy's behaviour here, either: while I don't think it's sanctionable, there are elements of his editorial approach to these facts that give me concern. But nothing here justifies the proposed sanction, when you consider all context and the actions of other contributors. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked

Hi I am starting to get quite annoyed with being stalked by @PamD: who I feel is intentionally abusing their edit powers and WP:Stalking and WP: Harassing me. I'm not sure what to do about this but I am wanting to report the incidents here..please note I'm using a mobile to post this. These following sentences are from her and they are to me against WP:Respect.

""For some reason I wondered what you are doing these days and this was the first edit I looked at. I hope you're editing carefully - I won't look further as I've got other things to do today." -

And

"This particular editor tends to remove other editors' contributions like this quite often."

On the pages User talk:DragonofBatley and Parade, Leamington Spa.

I really don't know how to feel about this but feel annoyed at being stalked by her and her trying to pick faults with me mostly then other editors. It seems to be only me they have interest in picking fault with on random.articles.and throwing the whole "Damaging the encyclopedia" term at me like I'm the main cause out of millions of editors. I'm tired of it and.just.want to be left alone and not bothered by them further..ive tried before to ask her to leave me alone but she carries on posting reverting and stalking me.

Please can other editors help me with being able to stop this stalking. I've made them aware of this and asked them to respond on this post. Thanks. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@DragonofBatley: Isn't the first message you quoted here PamD explicitly promising not to stalk you? And whether or not you're offended by the words in the second quote, are they accurate? Because PamD believes she's found an ongoing problem with your contributions. That means she might be violating policy if she didn't monitor your edits for issues. CityOfSilver 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There've been numerous times I've run into problems with one editor's contributions, then found another problem, and then another ... and so I've done a full examination of that person's editing history, and sometimes it turns up that the editor in question has committed pervasive errors needing correction. Many veteran editors have done similar examinations many times. Ravenswing 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

By my count, PamD has started 59 new sections on DragonofBatley's talk page since May 2021 (averaging more than two per month over the past two years), and made 158 edits to that talk page in total. I have no doubt these are all in good faith and in an effort to improve the quality of articles, but I think I'd also be quite annoyed if I was in DragonofBatley's shoes. It's not like there are major policy violations at play here that warrant this kind of monitoring – DragonofBatley occasionally might make a mistake when editing articles, as we all do, like accidentally swapping the units in the {{convert}} template, or omitting a single verb. This is normal. It is part of working on a collaborative encyclopedia. It will be fixed in time by other editors and readers. It does not require these bimonthly scoldings, put under section headings like "Carelessness", "More carelessness", "Careless edits", "Carelessness" (again!), and "Careless please do read". Sometimes these aren't even mistakes, like simply PamD thinking that DragonofBatley hasn't added enough links in other articles after creating a new one, or felt that DragonofBatley should have tagged unsourced text with {{cn}} rather than removing it (this is simply a matter of editing preference). Again, I fully believe PamD is attempting to be helpful here and ensure these articles are high-quality. But this kind of long-term observation of other's edits (and repeated talk page posts) only really works when it's a mentor-mentee relationship where both parties are willing, and DragonofBatley is clearly uncomfortable. DanCherek (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly very strange conduct to repeatedly leave comments at single editor's talk page over a longer period of time. I haven't looked through DragonofBatley's edits, but I agree that PamD is acting in good faith. I don't think much is needed at the moment other than to politely ask PamD to be more careful with her wording in the future. If there are major systemic issues in DragonofBatley's edits, that's a different issue that I am willing to discuss. @DragonofBatley: Would you be interested in a mentorship from @PamD: provided she is willing to do so? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

How could PamD be more polite when responding to an edit (diff) which adds a blatant error to an article? Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That's true. As I said, I didn't look through the edits by DragonofBatley. If there are long-term issues of blatant mistakes, than I don't think any action is needed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi I don't want a mentorship from PamD. I've already got one I feel with editors like Crouch, Swale, Eopsid and others who collaborate with me on geographical related articles. I'm sorry if others feel she is doing things in good faith but please try to understand that I haven't even been bothered by her in weeks and then out of the blue "Just thought I'd see what your up to these days and hope your not making bad edits". I'm not a petulant child 🚸 who needs an editor to hold my hand. I want to be able to edit on articles of interest to me. I admit I at times (not often) remove original research but normally it's the present tense or out dated articles. As wiki isn't written like advertising or storytelling in terms of a towns shops or influences without sources to back them up. Or a housing development was built on a Greenfield with no relevancy.

I challenge certain editors if I feel they make unfair reverts or completely trample over my contributions without a second thought. Most the stuff I remove is either subjective or irrelevant like for example. I removed United Kingdom from Hereford because we had Hereford Herefordshire and England for it's railway station article. No other city uses UK because it's England the country. And I always change the km to mi because we use miles.in UK and not km like in America or Canada etc.

I am careful with my edits but I'm being randomly monitored when there's no need for it and I don't see other new editors being as heavily monitored as I know a few new ones from before. Please just ask PamD to leave me alone and id rather not have a mentorship as I've been on here long enough now. DragonofBatley (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you acknowledge that your edit introduced an error into the article? PamD fixed that and alerted you so you would know for future edits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with a revert + edit summary? JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I would understand the talk page notes if they were repeatedly inserting the mistake, or had been doing across multiple articles. However, I don't think that's happened. I think all that needs to happen here is that PamG is politely told not to pester him. Revert if they want, but just leave an edit summary. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer that in all honesty. I just want to stop the pestering it's not fair to me as I'm just trying to contribute to this site and work well with most editors but PamDs recent comments are just not on and I'll be glad if someone higher could tell her to please leave me alone. I asked her to leave me alone before but she's obviously ignored it and that last post was not on with Witney on Wye on my talk page or the language. DragonofBatley (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

DragonofBatley, I appreciate that you're feeling harassed; is what you are saying that you'd prefer just a ping in the edit summary when PamD or someone else reverts you? Taken in isolation, that last section on your user talk was quite polite: you made a mistake, PamD reverted it and then went to your user talk to explain why it was wrong and what you can do in future to resolve the issue. They also fixed it in their next edit to the article, as they said at your user talk, so you can see how it works. A revert with a ping is the default output when using rollback, so is usually felt to be a bit brusque, but I do appreciate that PamD has posted rather a lot on your talk page. So would you rather just the revert ping? Unfortunately, it looks as if you don't understand what was wrong with that edit; by switching the "km" and the "mi", you changed the distance from 25 km to 25 miles, which is incorrect. Someone fixing that mistake, no matter who they are, is maintaining the encyclopaedia. And PamD tried to explain it to you. Please instead use the "order=flip" parameter next time you want to fix a convert template that has the km value first. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm expected to reply, but left it a day to see what other responses there were.

As far as I know I first encountered DragonofBatley (DoB hereafter) in May 2021 when Lincolnshire was on my watchlist and I saw removals of two long-standing paragraphs of unsourced text(diff, diff), which had never been tagged as unsourced. It looked as if this might have been WP:POINTy editing, as an unsourced addition by DoB had been reverted 10 minutes earlier. The text DoB removed was plausible and inoffensive (not BLP, political, attack, etc), though vague and in need of sourcing, but {{cn}} would have been more constructive. I posted on their talk page. It's difficult to trace the talk page history as they don't archive, but just delete, but this version has the "Lincolnshire" post and a couple more below where I spotted problem edits and offered constructive advice.

DoB is an experienced and enthusiastic editor. All their edits are done in good faith, but it does look as if they don't check what they've typed, or check their links: garbled sentences, CofE churches in RC dioceses, that recent edit which moved Whitney-on-Wye by 9 miles because they didn't understand how the {{convert}} template works. They work mainly on English settlements and railway stations, and our paths cross quite naturally from time to time: see User_talk:DragonofBatley#Larry_Steinbachek and St Chad's Church, Rochdale. But as Ravenswing pointed out above, when an editor sees a pattern of problematic edits they will often look at the other edits made by that editor. I've used talk page posts rather than just reverting, in the hopes of helping this editor to improve their editing.

Yes, there were a series of talk page posts last year headed "Carelessness" etc, but "Careless please do read" was DoB's heading, and I backed off from pointing out so many careless edits: the problem has diminished, but it hasn't gone away. My recent posts on their talk page have included suggesting how to increase readership and pageviews of an article they had created, and pointing out (using a "boiler-plate" message I keep in my sandbox) the brilliant gadget which helps prevent one from linking to dab pages accidentally.

I still think that the habit of removing longstanding article content because it's unsourced, without first leaving a {{cn}} template to encourage other editors to source it, is a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be discouraged. Doing so immediately before taking an article to AfD seems particularly unhelpful. I still think that editors should check what they type to make sure it makes sense, and check their links. I wish DragonofBatley well with their editing but I wish they would, still, take a little more care. I have tried to protect the encyclopedia from some of their poor edits, and to persuade them to edit more carefully.

I probably shouldn't have added the second paragraph of my post about Whitney-on-Wye, though it explains honestly how I came across that article. The encyclopedia benefitted: I corrected DoB's mistake. I stand by the first paragraph: I found and fixed a factual error and explained how to achieve their aim (imperial-first measures) by using the "order=flip" parameter to the template, so that next time they find a similar situation they will know how to do it properly. PamD 12:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, and please be honest as I've no choice but to take you at your word: Do you ever check DoB's contributions "out of the blue?" Or do you only view their contributions after 'fixing' one of their edits or otherwise encountering them? In other words, do you ever initiate contact with them by checking their contributions. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted My talk page post quoted above makes it quite clear that I did indeed have a look at their most recent contribution "out of the blue", and thereby rescued Whitney-on-Wye from the misinformation DoB had accidentally introduced. Why would I not be honest ... don't you normally take editors at their word? It's hardly polite to show such a lack of WP:AGF. PamD 07:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@PamD:I wanted a positive affirmation and not an interpretation, hence asking directly. I understand you may feel frustrated or defensive being the subject of an AN/I thread but please be careful of making such accusations of bad faith. Just as you wish for others to assume that you act in good faith, you should I'd ask you to assume others are acting in good faith. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@GabberFlasted Please look again at your words: "please be honest as I've no choice but to take you at your word". That reads, to me, as suggesting that I may not be trustworthy (you'll have to take me at my word, for want of any other choice ... meaning, for want of something more trustworthy than what I say), and that I might not be honest unless specifically asked to be. What else can it mean? Perhaps it was a careless choice of words, but it seemed offensive. PamD 21:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@PamD You might have seen this already, but there have been a few recent Village Pump threads on the question of whether unsourced content should be removed or tagged. It's very much an ongoing debate, with some feeling that WP:V necessitates removing that material, and some arguing that adding citation tags is the equivalent of kicking the can down the road or "making numbers go up." (I don't agree with that one....) Some people (though nowhere near the majority) have gone so far as to argue that every undersourced article should be soft-deleted outright in their entirety. Given all this, I don't think it's necessary or a good idea to tag someone's talk page every time they do something that's allowed under policy and that many editors prefer. 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff Thanks for pointing me to that interesting discussion. I skimmed through it and note the wide range of views, but don't think I saw much, if any, support for deleting long-standing uncontroversial content without previously tagging it with {{cn}} and without, apparently, trying to source it oneself.

"every time"? The only time I have mentioned this to DoB this year was when they removed content from my nearby village of Milnthorpe, including sourced content on local industries and material such as "It has one secondary school, Dallam School, and one primary school, Milnthorpe Primary School.": easily verifiable, and providing the only link from the village article to its notable school. Would anyone (OK, would any significant proportion of editors) really argue that removing that sentence improved the encyclopedia? PamD 07:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

PamD is one of the most polite and patient editors I have come across, DragonofBatley is not. If you want to see why someone needs to correct his edits just look at the page history of any article he has created and the careless editing that has to be corrected after his initial start. He takes offence because he has not followed the advice offered. I am also persona non grata so I now avoid him as I really can't be bothered anymore.Esemgee (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Esemgee, I'm not a nice editor? Only you think that, doesn't make it factual. I'm actually a very nice.editor but I have had enough of being stalked. That's the difference. I didn't ask for a popularity contest. You've so far.broke. your avoiding me and you haven't only just now avoided me. You did so months ago and had a go at me for politely asking you to stop removing sourced articles on Dewsbury like minster town and having a go at me for asking you to stop removing sourced facts. Your language then was quite rude but I didn't make an issue of it cause I'm better than that. And you felt like getting personal on Skegness talkpage so I again did better by asking you and Noswall59 to stop engaging further with me because you got a bit personal and vindictive. but you still have now. So yeah 👍 nice try at trying to make me a vile editor by saying I'm not a nice editor. As far as I'm concerned your not a nice editor either. You were vile to me on many talk pages and didn't like I stood against you for it. ~

DragonofBatley (talk)

.

DragonofBatley (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've also worked with PamD a bit lot though not much recently. Pam has used the word "careless" with be in 2022 which involved adding a separate paragraph about a topic already covered above. As far as I'm aware its not a common mistake I make so it probably didn't even need pointing out per WP:NOTPERFECT. I don't know too much about the problems with DB's editing but unless serious formatting or grammar errors are frequently occurring its just best to generally just quietly fix the errors. While I appreciate PamD's support/advice these kind of words may put some people off contributing, I don't find it offensive (though it do think its a tiny bit uncivil) but some users may find it offensive especially when Pam has made errors herself. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks fso much for your input, @Crouch, Swale. I have worked with you a few times before in the past on Districts, UAs for places like York, Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Warrington and Chesterfield among other articles. You know and I know, we both have helped to slightly strengthen the geographical sides of WIkipedia through creating more civil parish and district/settlement/ua articles. I also created articles for the likes of Borough of Chesterfield, City of York and City of Peterborough through thorough research and fact checking.

  It is edits like this that get overlooked and editors like Esemgee choose to ignore in favour of calling me a very nasty editor but don't have the facts to back them up other then their own vendetta. I always welcomed editors like @PamD to help me improve on things and tagged them where relevant for their opinions. But lately, this WP:Stalking and their recent comments which I see above, she has accepted her second paragraph was a bit unprofessional but not the first. I welcome I made an error, which I have to keep saying ain't intentional and if I don't know how to fix it. I happen to leave it to fix later but then she or another editor even a bot fixes it so there is no point in faults being picked over each edit. I don't see this with many new editors or experienced/inexperienced editors.I had a rocky start at the initial beginning blah blah blah. All editors make mistakes from time to time, plenty I know have made errors or anons and resulted in me or others fixing them. Why not tell those anons straight?

  They don't. I'm just sick of the stalking and having editors like Esemgee sticking their noses in business not related to them. I am sure PamD can handle herself like I can myself and I it was a case of asking other editors to step in and help alleviate this situation. Not to point the finger and play WP:Politics on this site. If one had autism like me and kept feeling watched and hounded. It be understandable but no one else is in my situation so I have every right to call it out and ask for it to stop. I am personally tired of it and want it to stop. I am not against PamD offering advice but not like her post on my talkpage of "I was wondering what you were up to these days for some reason" and such. I ain't a petulant child.

  I have over 1000s and 1000s of edits and articles created under my alias for the site. But some don't care to think that but get all in my face for standing up to it and for being a human being who has his limits. As Crouch has pointed out, PamD has made errors before and had to fix them. Same with the unconcerned editor above and myself among others. I have respect for PamD as an editor and advisor but I don't appreciate being like a chew toy for them from time to time with nitpicking minor edits when others go on to remove counties for past counties like Oldham for Lancs then Mancs and editors removing sourced content for non sourced content. Like youtubers instead of authors and vice versa. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Have you acknowledged making a mistake regarding the 25 km versus 25 miles link above? It's a very minor point, but the fact that you have posted a lot of text here with no clear acknowledgement that I can see is worrying. Those suggesting that PamD has done something wrong totally miss the point that contributors have to collaborate and work together to improve the encyclopedia. This is more than a hobby where people can pass their time as they want while not caring about mistakes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the edit to Whitney-on-Wye, he said I welcome I made an error right above, so I don't think it's fair to say that it's still unacknowledged. DanCherek (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m editing from a phone and it’s problematic for adding diffs. I suggest looking at the 26 April 2023 talk page edits at User talk:DragonofBatley. PamD’s behaviour on that day is sort of, well, odd. Someone posts something to Dragon’s talk page and Dragon just deletes it. PamD then appears from out of nowhere and politely berates Dragon about how to better handle their talk page. Some of the comments are valid but I kept wondering as I read them, “why are you involved in this, now?”, “who asked you?”, “are you just watching this editor all the time?” and “are you the mother-in-law?”

Check them for yourself and see what you think. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@A. B. The talk page is on my watch list. A post was removed with edit summary "No idea what that's all about". I was curious, looked at it, and found a civil question from a sensible-seeming editor had been removed. I would have been interested to see DoB's reply to the post, as it raised the topic of removing untagged unsourced content, but despite having a talk page heading "Throw me your criticism in the section of the new tabs.", DoB had chosen to delete the post. This seemed discourteous to the user who had posted. I wasn't sure whether they genuinely couldn't work out that it related to this edit (the unlinked mention of Longridge was a good clue): I also pinged the poster to point out the importance of using diffs on talk pages. PamD 07:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

So this explains why you made the choices you did, but perhaps it would be good to indicate whether you will continue to make similar choices in the future. (Personally I think it would help resolve this discussion if you would commit to stopping the busybodyish talk-page comments on subjects like talk-page etiquette where your input is not necessary or desired, while reserving the right to revert substantively problematic edits to articles.) --JBL (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Dragon's talk page is on your watchlist, Pam? Uh huh. It might be better for everybody if that stopped being the case soon. Policing another editor's talk page is a often a good thing if they're a target of trolls or vandals or the like, but when it appears you're doing it in order to police the editor in question something has gone very wrong. — Trey Maturin™ 17:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And while we're here, @PamD: in the middle of a discussion about how you appear to be reviewing every single edit that another editor makes, you make these two reverts [47] [48], the latter of which has an edit summary that could easily be read as outright obnoxious. Why are you doing this? — Trey Maturin™ 18:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, Trey, by the standards of incivility seen elsewhere on this noticeboard, those diffs are kind of a nothingburger. Not ANI-worthy. Admittedly that’s setting a very low behavioural bar.

To me, the issue is instead PamD’s overall pattern of edits and their cumulative effect, not any particular edit viewed in isolation. It’s as if she’s playing especially intense man-to-man defensive basketball. I suggest she just lighten up and let others handle things.[49]

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Those diffs are a nothingburger by any standard. PamD was sourcing previously unsourced content instead of allowing it to be completely removed. And the edit summaries are completely inoffensive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree, the stuff in article-space has been fine. --JBL (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't take a dive on this. But, noting in general, having somebody focus on somebody under an ostensible "just enforcing the rules" situation which is actually a "just doing an unusually thorough enforcement of an unusually strict interpretation of the rules and concentrating on a particular editor" can be very destructive. Whether or not this is such, perhaps it would be best for PamD agree to generally step back from this editor let other wiki editors and processes handle whatever is needed with this editor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur. When you monitor a single editor's actions and constantly badger them for mistakes, more often than not valuable good-faith editors are driven away rather than improving. In some cases this can be warranted, but PamD is leaving talk page messages for minor mistakes that really could just be solved by a ping and explanation in the edit summary. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to defend PamD on this. This project is a collaborative effort. With exceptions including topic bans as well as rules violations, any edit any of us makes can be checked, reverted, folded, spindled, and mutilated by any other editor. Nobody's exempt, and we don't have designated moderators whose job it is. One reason nobody's exempt is that everybody sometimes makes mistakes, misunderstands, or writes something in a way that can be improved; the wiki way is that others fix and improve things. Another is that reasonable people can disagree, for example on whether (in a non-BLP) it's better to remove a slab of unsourced text or tag it as needing a citation. Most editors would agree that unless it's obvious trivia, best of all is to insert a source. If something is removed because it's unsourced, our advice on editing disputes is that an editor wishing to restore it needs to supply a source. That's exactly what PamD did in the second edit flagged above by Trey Maturin. How is this edit summary explaining the action "obnoxious": Undid revision 1157950240 by DragonofBatley (talk) - sources found, one describing objections, one confirming that it is being / has been built? That's the rollback edit summary plus a clear explanation. The only way I can imagine softening it up is by not naming the editor. Harassment consists of following an editor's contributions in a hostile manner, but many editors check the contributions of someone who often makes problematic edits; and leaving notes on that person's talk page to explain reverts and other changes is part of doing that constructively. That is what user talk pages are primarily for. Sadly, DragonofBatley's edits here suggest there is indeed a bit of a problem. Some very unclear prose; two denials of being a "petulant child" (I think they mean a "foolish child"); in response to Esemgee making the comparison PamD is one of the most polite and patient editors I have come across, DragonofBatley is not, an explosion of hyperbole and what looks to me like a personal attack: I'm not a nice editor? Only you think that ... So yeah 👍 nice try at trying to make me a vile editor by saying I'm not a nice editor. As far as I'm concerned your not a nice editor either.; and it took two of us asking whether they understood the problem with the change to the convert template to get from And I always change the km to mi because we use miles.in UK to a concession in passing that I'm grateful DanCherek pointed out, because it's not at all obvious: I welcome I made an error. I note that DragonofBatley has said here that they're on the spectrum. But both a certain level of competence and readiness to listen are required to work here (both have policy shortcuts that I won't impolitely link to). Someone's entitled to blank their talk page (although like PamD I was surprised this removal was on grounds of not knowing what the query was about; the article was specified, just not linked), but not to refuse all criticism, or to demand to work only with their friends, and based on this page, it seems DragonofBatley is edging too close to at least one of those. A. B. and others suggest PamD should leave checking DragonofBatley's work to someone else, but who gets to spend the necessary time and get called a bad guy (or a mother-in-law if they happen to have a female user name)? DragonofBatley needs to up their game. This is the big league, publication, and we all look at and work on each other's edits. They do it themself: others go on to remove counties for past counties like Oldham for Lancs then Mancs and editors removing sourced content for non sourced content. Like youtubers instead of authors and vice versa. They see PamD as "nitpicking minor edits", but some of their errors aren't minor. (Some of mine aren't either, of course.) Be more careful—Pam's right, that's the fix—and realise that reasonable people can differ on what's a "nitpick". Otherwise, I'm afraid we will indeed have a problem editor here. (PamD has never dragged DragonofBatley to a noticeboard or templated them for unconstructive editing, am I right? Really, they do appear to me to have been making great efforts to be civil and constructive.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree! DragonofBatley seems (here and user page) positively proud of rebuffing and ignoring comments on their work, but given some of the example edits this seems misplaced. There may be a problem here & I don't think it's PamD causing it. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm less concerned that Dragon's editing isn't perfect (or even necessarily very good) than I am with what seems to be prima facie harassment: Pam is giving the appearance of watching every edit Dragon makes, policing Dragon's talk page, taking pleasure in reverting reasonable edits with what can be read as obnoxious edit summaries, dogging Dragon's every step... and whilst this is being discussed here, continuing to do so unabashed.

If this was happening to me, regardless of the quality of my edits, I would get sick of it rapidly – as would most reasonable people.

PamD has never dragged DragonofBatley to a noticeboard or templated them for unconstructive editing, am I right? is a horrible metric, by the way. We don't measure harassment by the number of templates issued or how often someone is taken to a dramaboard. We measure it by how someone is editing and interacting. By that metric, Pam is on Dragon's case all of the time. That would drive me nuts and isn't fair.

It's not asking too much for Pam to disengage for a week or so – if Dragon's edits are as bad as are being suggested here, someone else (lots of someones else) will intervene. — Trey Maturin™ 12:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Pam is on Dragon's case all of the time.": Just a little analysis here of all of my 2023 comments on DoB's talk page (any omissions are accidental, one bullet may include more than one comment in a thread):

1. 5 Jan: I can't remember what led me to User_talk:DragonofBatley#Vigo railway station (England), but the text I posted there is some standard boiler-plate advice I offer when I notice that an article has been created at a disambiguated title with no access provided from the base title([[Vigo railway station]). I also talked about church-name dab pages, having made links to some of DoB's articles. I thought we had a civilised exchange.
2. 17 Jan: Can't remember what led to User_talk:DragonofBatley#Larry_Steinbachek but I'd been editing a related article and made what I thought were a couple of helpful suggestions about this one, and how to increase its readership.
3. 6 April: Milnthorpe is on my watchlist: I live about 5 miles away. I noticed another removal of untagged unsourced content, including removing the mention of the local Dallam School which has an article, and commented. (I later found sources for much of the removed content).
4. 6 April: I had created the redirect from St Chad's Church, Rochdale to the information on the church at Rochdale#Religion, (as it then was) so noticed, and commented, when that redirect was overwritten by an article on the church here which was mostly infobox and omitted all the historically interesting content, as well as having a few other problems. I then went on to copy that content, with attribution, into the new article to improve it, and found a couple more sources etc.
5. 15 April: After seeing User_talk:DragonofBatley#St_Chad's_Church,_Chadsmoor_moved_to_draftspace I thought I offered constructive comments.
6. 26 April: See above Longridge discussion. DoB deleted another editor's talk page post saying "No idea what that's all about": I clarified and commented.
7. 29 May: User_talk:DragonofBatley#Whitney-on-Wye: I saw an edit which moved a town by 9 miles, corrected it, and explained how to avoid the problem (the useful parameter "|order=flip" in the {{convert}}, a template with more bells and whistles than most of us have learned to use) and, not having been scrutinising their talk page particularly carefully, I noticed User_talk:DragonofBatley#Disambiguation_link_notification_for_April_30 for the first time and offered my standard boiler-plate advice about the brilliant gadget which helps one to avoid linking to dab pages, as useful information.

Genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia by helping DoB edit better, offering constructive suggestions, and occasionally fixing errors they had left. It seems we will never agree on whether or not it is good practice to removed long-standing, uncontentious, unsourced content rather than tagging it with {{cn}}. I think it damages the encyclopedia, DoB presumably sees it as helpful cleanup. PamD 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia by helping DoB edit better, offering constructive suggestions, and occasionally fixing errors they had left. And they asked you to stop in this thread. Your response was to continue to go through their edits looking for 'mistakes' and reverting things they did that you didn't like whilst they were here asking for help to try to get you to stop. Please stop. Stop. Stop doing this. Please. Stop. — Trey Maturin™ 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeating 'stop' over and over accomplishes nothing except to raise the temperature of the conversation. It is clear that the OP wishes to be left alone. What is much less clear is whether the OP understands the problems with their edits. Continuing to point the accusing finger solely at PamD, which you have done in each of your comments in this thread, is not helpful. Please stop berating PamD so that the discussion may proceed in a civil, reasonable manner. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin: I don't think your reading or characterization of the situation is accurate (eg, labeling this edit-summary as outright obnoxious (!)) or helpful. May I request that you step back from this thread? Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi PamD, apologies for repeating my point from above, but it seems to have been swamped and I think it's worth making again: Could you please agree to stop giving unsolicited and unnecessary advice to DoB, as in edits 5 and 6 on your list? Or, indeed, simply agree to leave their talk-page alone in the absence of an unusually strong reason to post there? (You should, of course, continue to make edits in article-space that improve or protect the encyclopedia.) If you would agree to that, I think it would do a lot to defuse this situation. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• @PamD: I second what JBL said above. Usually it is a good practice to guide users who make good-faith errors by posting on their talkpage but in this case, since the feedback is not being appreciated, it would be advisable to keep off DragonofBatley's talkpage unless necessary.

@DragonofBatley: Your conduct here has been really subpar, eg in comments like this one. Keep in mind that we are here solely to help build an encyclopedia and user talkpages is a resource that is provided to aid that effort, in part, as a venue for other editors to provide feedback. You cannot simply label editors providing that feedback (in polite, relevant and non-templated messages) "stalkers" and "harassers", as you have done repeatedly, and hope for your edit/conduct to escape scrutiny. While I have advised PamD to stay off your talkpage, they and others are still welcome to review your edits and report any grievous issues to ANI or other relevant boards. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You probably should look at how that editor responded to me before and if you think being called not a nice editor is okay not to challenge. then your not offering a fair platform to challenge that opinion. Esemgee is a horrible editor towards me and I won't change my feelings about that. If they can say one thing, I can say another. He began it and I responded to it. "Your conduct here has been really subpar, eg in comments like this one". I thinks the other editors was subpar too. I'm allowed to defend myself aren't I? DragonofBatley (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks very much like not a niceness issue, but a competence issue on your part. I can appreciate that you don't like having your repeated and persistent insertion of errors being called out, but the root cause is your repeated and persistent insertion of errors - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Khirurg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to introduce User:Khirurg. I've added some historical context in the article of Albania. Namely, that Pyrrhus (who was of Greek origin) was raised in Illyria in the court of Glaucias of Taulantii [1] which is located in nowadays' Albania).

However, the user does not seem to like this one (WP:IDL). He says that it is irrelevant to the article [2], thought the Taulantian kingdom exactly lies in the Albanian territory. He further explains that "there is a gap of some 23 centuries between the time of Pyrrhus and the creation of the Albanian state". Should every page about countries on Wikipedia remove content that "doesn't have to do anything" with their modern country? I do not think so. It's not only that, the user keeps reverting my edits and following me ([3] [4] [5] [6] (in less than 5 hours) without opening a discussion in most of the cases, except for Pyrrhus [7]. But that wasn't on the articles page either, it was on my talkpage. I responded with "Stop boming my talkpage and discuss on the talks of articles" he responded and accused me of "I'll stop when you stop the nationalistic POV-pushing across multiple articles.". It gets even worse, he's accused me of "crude nationalistic POV-pushing" [8]. Oh man. All of that in less than one day after he was inactive for a few days. This has been going on for a while. And yes, he has already been sanctioned [10] once.

The user is know for being "unwilling to reach a consensus" [9], as pointed out by RoyalHeritageAlb.

This report is about both reporting a user as well as a content dispute. -- AlexBachmann (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support procedural close Content disputes should go to WP:DRN.

81.214.107.198 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I've already explained that this report isn't only about a content dispute. "This noticeboard is for content disputes only" (WP:DRN). Similar issues have been processed here, there's no reason to close it.AlexBachmann (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edits adding Pyrrhus of Epirus to an article about a country he has nothing to do with is a textbook example of nationalistic POV editing. The fact that you cannot grasp that is doubly alarming (WP:CIR issues). I gave you a discretionary sanctions warning a year ago due to the poor quality and nationalistic tone of your edits. Since then your editing has not improved one bit, so maybe it's time I reported you to the appropriate venue. Khirurg (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The kingdom was located in Albania, why shouldn't it be mentioned? There is no nationalistic POV editing. You also said that I was "trying to influence the readers that he was Illyrian" which is false. This clearly rests on WP:IDL. I've contributed a lot on this project, I am (just as you) interessted in certain topics. If that's nationalistic POV, you would be doing the same. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it is you who is incorrect, and I have explained this to you many times, including the article talkpage and your own userpage. Even a cursory glance at articles such Epirus (ancient state) shows that the kingdom was almost entirely located in Greece. Pyrrhus of Epirus has absolutely nothing to do with Albania, and the fact that you are refusing to get the point is alarming. Khirurg (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

When we're talking here, you say Ancient Epirus was almost entirely in Greece, which is false. The territory up to Dhermi and the Ceraunian Mountains was Epirote. Apart from that, we're talking about the Taulantian kingdom that was completely in Albania. And that was where Pyrrhus was raised. That's a fact. But let's let someone else decide whether it is relevant or not. AlexBachmann (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

What is definitely a fact is that you are misusing this board to re-hash the same factually incorrect points you made in your talkpage and the article talkpage (i.e. for the third time). WP:IDHT, WP:CIR. Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, let's let some else decide. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Without regard to the question of whether this information is WP:DUE in the Albania article, all history of what is now Albania is relevant to include in sections about Albanian history, although the article could do a better job of citing sources that are explicitly about the history of Albania to ensure that all the content is relevant. I don't see evidence that OP is a "nationalistic POV-pusher", that type of accusation should only be made if there is abundant evidence to support it. (t · c) buidhe 08:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  The history section of country articles is meant to provide a brief overview per WP:SS, not highlight cherry-picked details.As far as I know Julius Caesar and Augustus spent some time on the territory of what is now Albania. Shall we mention them as well? Why stop at Pyrrhus? Shall we list every single notable individual that has spent a few years in a particular country several thousands years before said country was created? Anyway, ANI is not the place for content discussions. There is a thread at the article's talkpage regarding the issue. Btw I don't recall calling anyone a "nationalistic POV-pusher". I described the edit by the OP as nationalist POV-pushing, and I stand by that. Many more examples: [50] [51]. Khirurg (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Khirurg, I did not expect such weak examples. I provided sources to those claims and discussed in both cases; not to mention all the cases where you did not discuss but simply revert. Good idea to add Caesars arriving in Albania. Thanks for this one. I'll add the content as soon as this nonsense is over. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's also relevant to mention that you immediately reverted my edit on Albania without even finishing this discussion and ignoring the advice that was given to you above again. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Once again you show that you have no understanding about Wikipedia procedures and policies. This noticeboard is not for content disputes. You cannot just add whatever content you like without consensus. Khirurg (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Again, you are known for "unwilling to reach a consensus" It simply is impossible to add content that you don't like. That's why we're here as you've may noticed or not. Again, let's let someone else decide. And for the third time, this report isn't only about a content dispute. Similar cases have been processed here; that can't be used as an excuse to dismiss this report. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Unwilling to reach a consensus" according to whom? A user that has come within a hair of being blocked indefinitely for pushing nationalistic POV and socking? My contribs show perfectly well who is "willing to reach a consensus", as yours show who is the one pushing nationalistic POV. Khirurg (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Don't get into that consensus thing, I have provided evidence that you (in the most times) don't discuss at all. The fact that RoyalHeritageAlb has been sanctioned doesn't mean his statements are malicious. Personally, I wouldn't use that as an argument because you have already been blocked too. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  What? I "don't discuss at all"? Then what's all this [52]? Maybe you should be blocked for disrupting this noticeboard with blatantly false statements. Khirurg (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  At first, you can't ignore the evidence that I've provided. Secondly, I've said in the most times. We don't need to discuss about this more, let's let a admin take a look in our discussion and decide whether there's actual malice in our statements. AlexBachmann (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't provided any "evidence", in fact the only evidence there is that of quite a bit of nationalistic POV-pushing by you. You have made numerous baseless accusations and now blatantly false statements. Khirurg (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  We both know that we're not going to agree on anything. AlexBachmann (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, stop with accusations of nationalistic POV-pushing. Unless you have stronger evidence than presented above, this constitutes a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ayya Vaikundar

Over the years, User:Vaikunda Raja has displayed WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. The edits of various editors have been reverted to "his" version of the article [53], User:Dl2000 [54][55], User:Chronikhiles [56][57], User:DaxServer [58] [59]. Request a solution to the same. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the article's talk page, it looks like Vaikunda Raja (VR) has shepherded this article for nearly 20 years. On the talk page, Redtigerxyz tried to explain how an encyclopedia article should approach the subject per WP:NPOV#Religion (Jun 2022); Chronikhiles pointed out (Jul 2022): This article is riddled with theological statements that are presented as though they are facts. It looks like serious attempts to fix the POV of the article started most recently in July 2022, and VR has reverted every WP:NPOV rewrite by multiple editors. VR repeatedly points out that there is an article about the historical person (Historical Vaikundar) but that this article is about the "spiritual figure" and claims Academics confuses the historical as well as the spiritual perspective over Vaikundar often.

I think the mental framework that VR is using of historical/spiritual prevents them from understanding how to apply WP:NPOV to the "spiritual figure" article. VR seems to think that an article about a mythology should be wiki-voiced as if the mythology were fact. I'm not convinced that VR can approach this topic as an objective editor rather than as an adherent, and it might be more constructive if VR was limited to using its talk page to propose edits. Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, a more appropriate venue for this sort of issue. It will save you the time and drama of a discussion here. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A. B., I believe that the issue here is not the contributions, the contributor. Thus, Dispute resolution noticeboard is not the right forum IMHO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"I believe that the issue here is not the contributions, the contributor."

If the contributor is the issue not for his contributions, then your issue with the contributor is personal?! - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

By accusing of myself claiming WP:OWNERSHIP, the initiator of this section here had tactically or unconsciously diverted the core issue.

To understand the issue:

Ayya Vaikundar is a mythical figure and so the article Ayya Vaikundar is primarily based on the source of Ayyavazhi Mythology, the Akilathirattu Ammanai as if the Krishna article is primarily based on Mahabharata, Bagavat Gita and Bagavata Purana. That does not mean that Krishna article is (and should be) solely based on Mahabharata alone. Even though various accounts, interpretations, validations are included in the article, the main narrative of the life, events, character and teachings of Krishna is based on Mahabharata and Bagavat Gita. There are historical perspective for Krishna as well. Those are cut-shorted to one section alone; and even in that section, historical sources is intermingled with literary sources and so the factual validity or historicity is mixed up with beliefs and mythys. Not even a single statement is found in the lead section which explains the historical validity of Krishna. All sources points back directly or indirectly to some religious/literary sources.

Phaethon is the son of Sun God Helios. And this is as per Greek mythology. The article begins with saying that "Phaethon is the son of Helios in Greek Mythology". And the whole article is written in that context.

These are not odd cases. Almost all articles on religious figures/god-heads is been presented in a similar way. Likewise Ayya Vaikundar article begins with a forthright statement that this is a mythology article. This is the point I was making repetedly, and I wonder that the level of ignorance in people who couldn't figure out this simple things are unbelievable!

Apart from that, the historical validity of Vaikundar is more than that of Krishna, Phaethon etc for many reasons. The most important among them are that his period is so recent and the impact of Vaikundar (as understood by academics and historians) are immense and vivid; it be social, religious or cultural; so much so that several social reform/renaissance movements across south India had their roots in Vaikundar's activities.

So numerous academic/ historical sources in the past 100 years or so had done research and published hundreds of articles/ books/thesis etc. Those sources, (since most of them are under the disciplines, History/Society/Humanity and very few under spirituality/philosophy) portrayed Vaikundar from the historical perspective alone which runs directly contradicting the religious and literary sources on which the religious beliefs/views of millions of People are based upon. Another important thing is that, the Akilamic narrative is that they are two different personalities. 1. Mudisoodum Perumal (1809-1833) and Vaikundar (1833-1851).

So considering these things, the Historical Vaikundar article is based on Historical perspective and it is mentioned forthright on top of the article. On the other hand the Vaikundar Article is based on mythology/beliefs and that again is mentioned forthright on the leading sentence of the article Ayya Vaikundar. I don't understand what is the confusion here.

And regarding the baseless accusations:

1. "Over the years, User:Vaikunda Raja has displayed WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. The edits of various editors have been reverted to "his" version of the article"

I can't understand the logic that reverting undiscussed reverts amounts to claim of ownership! Especially when it is quiet convincing that, two or more users working well aligned with an agenda, completely diminishing the value of arguments and misleading as if they are working with consensus!!

see this edit for example which is mentioned above. Here my revert was called as Vandalism!

2. " According to the article's talk page, it looks like Vaikunda Raja (VR) has shepherded this article for nearly 20 years. On the talk page, Redtigerxyz tried to explain how an encyclopedia article should approach the subject per WP:NPOV#Religion (Jun 2022); Chronikhiles pointed out (Jul 2022): This article is riddled with theological statements that are presented as though they are facts. It looks like serious attempts to fix the POV of the article started most recently in July 2022, and VR has reverted every WP:NPOV rewrite by multiple editors. VR repeatedly points out that there is an article about the historical person (Historical Vaikundar) but that this article is about the "spiritual figure" and claims Academics confuses the historical as well as the spiritual perspective over Vaikundar often.

I think the mental framework that VR is using of historical/spiritual prevents them from understanding how to apply WP:NPOV to the "spiritual figure" article."

The context shall only be understood by following the conversation here. It was distorted and narrated in a completely different way by User:Schazjmd, which I suspect was with a clear motive.

3. "VR seems to think that an article about a mythology should be wiki-voiced as if the mythology were fact."

Mythology is mythology and fact is fact. Nobody is claiming anything which is mythological as factual unless it is factually validated. Otherwise, validate the factual accuracy of each events in hundreds of mythology articles in Wikipedia before expecting it in Vaikundar article alone. Please explain your point with reference to your context for the articles Phaethon and Krishna.

4. "I'm not convinced that VR can approach this topic as an objective editor rather than as an adherent,"

It amuses me; the validation instinct of User:Schazjmd and his/her authority on scrutinizing the objectivity or rationality of other users!

5. "and it might be more constructive if VR was limited to using its talk page to propose edits."

Best luck and I would be more happy to see it... - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

ABOVE ALL... I accept that the article is in a poor shape and that it need a major clean-up. The article was written some 10-15 years back and it is a time consuming process to do a major rewrite and I am working on it. I will be doing it in month or two. And I had told this to you (User:redtigerxyz) back. Despite, I am not sure why people here are in a hurry to either block myself or reverting my edits repeatedly and initiating discussion in multiple forum simultaneously? - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and should be taken to the appropriate venue. Nevertheless, a comment: Vaikunda Raja has helpfully provided the example of Phaethon, saying "The article begins with saying that "Phaethon is the son of Helios in Greek Mythology". And the whole article is written in that context." This is incorrect. The article is written in the context of real-life, constantly relating mythological statements back to those who made them ("according to version", "in some versions", "Hyginus however attributes", "Euripides' version of the story", etc.); by contrast, the Ayya Vaikundar article presents mythological statements as wikivoice, and. intentionally or not, presents the "historical figure" as secondary and inferior to the "spiritual figure". When combined with the misleading capitalisation of numerous words and the multiple tenses used, the article's tone is certainly unacademic and possibly completely inadequate for Wikipedia's standards, like so many other of our India-related articles. Once this ANI is closed, I would be happy to perform a thorough copyedit of the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that this is purely a content dispute, given VR's rather odd post, quite a bit of which flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Not to mention the haughty comments like It amuses me; the validation instinct of User:Schazjmd and his/her authority on scrutinizing the objectivity or rationality of other users! or the odd response to a suggestion VR be limited to talk page comments only (Best luck and I would be more happy to see it). That sounds like acceptance for a topic ban from the page, but I doubt VR meant to agree to such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"...given VR's rather odd post, quite a bit of which flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Not to mention the haughty comments like..."...That sounds like acceptance for a topic ban from the page, but I doubt VR meant to agree to such..."

To understand this, one should go back and look into what had happened in the past 2 decades. I am afraid that somebody shall mistake me that myself "claiming ownership" etc! Please don't misunderstand things. This is just a recall of the past.

Series of onslaught had happened on these articles multiple times in the past; sometimes major ones. And in many cases, which I understood slowly, that their problem is with the content and topic rather than the quality and standards of the content. They are always selective and expect every policies be strictly followed in these articles alone. See this version; One user went to the extent of placing template 90 individual spaces across the 32Kbyte article. This happened in 2006, during a time when inline citation is not used/expected frequently in High and Medium important articles. I was new to wikipedia then, and it took time for me to figure out what was happening. Then, We worked out and began adding inline citations. We were required for citing almost every sentences and even words multiple sometimes here. And few years later I remember somebody even complained that the article is "over referenced", then! completely unaware of what happened in the past, and I was expected to explain in paragraphs about what those past happenings.

Then back in 2014 or so, The Portal:Ayyavazhi was deleted without notice and I don't know on what ground it was removed. I think Portal:Ayyavazhi is one among the top/first 200 portals in English Wikipedia(then). The Wikiproject:Ayyavazhi was removed citing lack of participation (that is acceptable) and the project page is now been redirected to WikiProject:Hinduism.

Then in 2020/2021 Few important pages, History of Ayyavazhi, Etymology of Ayyavazhi, Ayyavazhi and Hinduism etc were deleted without proper discussion. All these decade-old-articles (not less than 15-20 Kbytes each) were deleted hurriedly in a very short span of time! And 3 months back proposal was made to delete Historical Vaikundar Article altogether and was suspended after a debate later.

All these events show a clear direction; I feel that there are quiet a number of users,(some of them well co-ordinated) who are unhappy with this topic Ayya Vaikundar/Ayyavazhi itself and not about the quality of the content. They, I feel, work synchronously with goals as mentioned above. Nonetheless I am not arguing that every thing is perfect with the articles. The tone and language of the articles need attention and dedication. That is a continuous and progressive process and should/will be done overtime like every other India related article as mentioned by User:AirshipJungleman29 Thanks, - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 04:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

" ...the Ayya Vaikundar article presents mythological statements as wikivoice..." "...intentionally or not, presents the "historical figure" as secondary and inferior to the "spiritual figure" "

I agree that, the tone of the article is misleading and confusing as somebody told some days back that the difference between the mythological and historical statements in the article is undifferentiable. This issue settles on a major rewrite of the Article, which I have planned to do within a month or so since it is a laborious process.

"...the article's tone is certainly unacademic and possibly completely inadequate for Wikipedia's standards, like so many other of our India-related articles"

As told earlier I agree to this and that's why I feel that it is appropriate to do a major rewrite rather than copyedit sections or add/remove statements.

"Once this ANI is closed I would be happy to perform a thorough copyedit of the article."

Thanks for that I would like to request you to do it once I do complete a major rewrite. Thanks - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 01:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Agreeing with The Hand That Feeds You, this was brought here as it is dealt with user behaviour of its "owner", Vaikunda Raja, which suggests disregard of wiki policy - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, WP:RS. Talk:Ayya_Vaikundar#Proposed_merge_of_Historical_Vaikundar_into_Ayya_Vaikundar presents references to academic, third-party references (RS), which describe Ayya as a historical founder of Ayyavazhi born c. 1810; not the avatar merged from the sea c. 1833. However, most of the articles is based on the latter, based on WP:PRIMARY or secondary versions of Ayyavazhi scriptures. The FA Jesus is not about the mythological Jesus of the Gospels; it is about historical individual along with sections on his teachings and Chiristian belief of him being God the Son. Despite multiple users reverting to a neutral, historical article, Vaikunda Raja reverts to sectarian version of the article; which is a violation of the spirit of the WP:BRD. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Talk:Ayya_Vaikundar#Proposed_merge_of_Historical_Vaikundar_into_Ayya_Vaikundar presents references to academic, third-party references (RS), which describe Ayya as a historical founder of Ayyavazhi born c. 1810; not the avatar merged from the sea c. 1833. However, most of the articles is based on the latter, based on WP:PRIMARY or secondary versions of Ayyavazhi scriptures."

  It seems that Redtigerxyz ^Talk confuses between academic sources and reliable secondary sources; And assumes as Historical Vaikundar is written based on academic sources and religious article is based on scriptural sources. Both the articles carry academic as well as religious secondary sources which are reliable. Scholarly sources are available for both mythological as well as historical views over Vaikundar and all of them aren't essentially belief oriented.

  "The FA Jesus is not about the mythological Jesus of the Gospels; it is about historical individual along with sections on his teachings and Chiristian belief of him being God the Son."

  The Case of Vaikundar is not exactly the same a Jesus. In the case of Jesus, (whether its mythological or historical view) it is only about Jesus, from his birth to around 35 years. But here in the case of Vaikundar it involves two (and even more) different personalities. The first one from the birth to age 24, the second one from 24 to 42, another one from the end of dwapara yuga to age 42. and another one personality right before the creation of universe and exists eternally. All these characters/personalities exist distinctly in parallel within Vaikundar.

  But anyway, The jesus article is comparable at least partly.

  "The FA Jesus is not about the mythological Jesus of the Gospels; it is about historical individual along with sections on his teachings and Chiristian belief of him being God the Son."

  The Vaikundar article shall be rewritten in a month or two and will be done by considering your suggestions.

  "Agreeing with The Hand That Feeds You, this was brought here as it is dealt with user behaviour of its "owner", Vaikunda Raja, which suggests disregard of wiki policy - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, WP:RS."

  "Despite multiple users reverting to a neutral, historical article, Vaikunda Raja reverts to sectarian version of the article; which is a violation of the spirit of the WP:BRD."

  The points raised by user The Hand That Feeds You had been addressed in my previous reply with explaining the context;

  The selective assault the Ayyavazhi articles had faced in the past; The Portal, Project Page and few key pages (most of them more than a decade old) deleted silently with in a relatively short span around 2020/2021. Again user Redtigerxyz ^Talk addressing me as "owner" in a prosaic tone just for remembering and recalling the series of systematic assaults the Ayyavazhi pages faced in the past.

  I had informed earlier that I am planning for a major rewrite several times and despite few users are in a 'hurry to do something'. It suggests a strong communal/sectarian agenda who are more concerned with the 'topic' rather than article in selectively targeting these pages disproportionately under the cover of wikifying, cleaning-up, validating the article's NPOV etc mindless that I was about to rewrite the article in a few weeks time - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 12:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion is expected selectively in the Vaikundar article to be followed in its sharpest form. I would like to request Redtigerxyz ^Talk to take a look into the Rama and Krishna articles (atleast the lead section alone) and hundreds of other mythology articles in wikipedia which are clearly dominated by mythological overtones. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 13:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Law of holes seems to apply here... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong's bullying of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So I noticed earlier today that MalnadachBot hasn't edited in over a month, this seemed rather unusual to me because that bot is one the main lint error fixers on the site. Looking a bit further it appears the bot's operator hasn't edited in nearly the same time period, and one of the last things they did was engage in a talk page thread with Scottywong. It appears that Scottywong has bullied ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ off the site with some grossly inappropriate comments.

I include some of Scottywong's comments towards ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ here for context.

Extended content

[60] == Please stop with the annoying useless edits already == Hello, user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia. I don't even know what to call you. In my head, I just think of you as "Mr. Squiggles" because your username just looks like a bunch of squiggly lines to me. You might remember me as the editor that has loudly complained about how annoying and useless I find your bot that fixes lint errors. I even started an RFC to determine consensus on whether your bot is in violation of WP:COSMETICBOT. Sadly, there wasn't consensus, so I decided to crawl back into my hole and shut up. I went through the trouble of hiding your bot's edits from my watchlist, in the hopes that I could minimize the annoyance caused by your fixing of trivial cosmetic non-issues on ancient pages that no human will likely ever view again for the remainder of human civilization as we know it. But today I opened my watchlist, and I find more lint error edits on some of my ancient user talk page archives. How is that possible if I've already hidden your bot's edits? Well, it appears that now you're making lint error edits from your main account, not your bot account. And you're not flagging them as bot edits anymore. [61] [62] [63] Why are you doing this? And why did you choose my user talk page archives as the target of your annoying edits? Are you trying to annoy me on purpose? If these edits are automated, it's likely that they are in violation of WP:MEATBOT. I would ask that you stop immediately, or explain why you're making bot edits from your main account. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [64] The {{nobots}} template was added to those pages specifically to prevent you (and only you) from editing those pages any further. And despite our history, and despite noticing the {{nobots}} template on the pages, and despite noticing the timing with which the {{nobots}} template was added directly after your bot ravaged my talk page archive, your reaction to seeing that your bot correctly skipped those pages is to edit them manually from your main account instead? Seriously? I'm really starting to suspect that there is a potential WP:CIR problem here, between your decision-making in this situation, to your bot's historical performance record, to your username that uses non-English characters, to the hideous font on your user page, to the annoying rainbow border on your user pages, etc., etc., etc. I would propose a third option for dealing with this situation: in the future, please do not edit any page in my userspace from any of your accounts for any reason, with the exception of my user talk page if you wish to send me a message. I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

How on earth is this an appropriate manner for an administrator to be interacting with another user? Even more concerningly every single policy reference Scottywong gives does not support what they claim it does.

• How is it appropriate for an administrator to be engaging in childish, purile name calling and refering to other editors with names like Mr. Squiggles or user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia.
• How on earth is "you have a username in a script other than Latin" evidence of a CIR issue? Policy explicitly allows for non-Latin usernames (WP:NONLATIN) and this editor is using their real name. Frankly this just comes across as racist - "your name is foreign so you're incompetent" is a grossly inappropriate thing to insinuate.
• How on earth are three edits made over the course of an hour evidence of a meatbot violation? The edits were not being made at a rapid pace, were not made with an automated tool and the editor has repeatedly gained consensus for making them, including in an RFC that Scottywong started.
• Why was Scottywong playing stupid, passive aggressive games with the nobots template instead of just asking the editor not to edit their archives.
  • Why is Scottywong claiming that the fact that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ didn't pick up on the fact that they were using the nobots template as passive aggressive nonsense as evidence of a CIR issue?
• How is "you have a border on your userpage" evidence of a CIR issue? What part of policy would support blocking someone because they added a decorative border to their userpage?
• How is "I don't like the font on your userpage" evidence of a CIR issue?
• What on earth are they referring to when they say your bot's historical performance record is evidence of a CIR issue? The performance record that lead to MalnadachBot being given the go ahead to fix any lint error on the site?

Scottywong's messages seem completely out of line. The name calling and tone are extremely inappropriate, especially coming from an administrator, a position that requires that editors behave in a respectful, civil manner (WP:ADMINCOND). It is deeply concerning that Scottywong doesn't seem to have read or understood any of the policies they quote, and misuses them in grossly inappropriate ways (how is it acceptable to threaten to CIR block a user for having a non-Latin name?). And how on earth is that first message a reasonable reaction to an editor making two edits in your userspace? 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Squiggles or user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia alone would make me question an admin's temperament to continue to be an admin. The fact that Malnadach's name is on his user page makes this even worse. Looking at Malnadach's page and contribtions, it seems he is one of the few people who has deep knowledge of html and does linting on this site. Their work makes converts what would be gibberish for those using screen readers and other alternative browsing methods into a usable site. spryde | talk 19:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit that I was frustrated with the behavior of ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and my messages to them expressed that frustration in a way that was admittedly a bit blunt. And for that bluntness, I apologize. The issue in question has a long history that I won't take the time to go into here, suffice it to say it wasn't just this single isolated incident that frustrated me. Contrary to the Oxford IP's claim, I never resorted to name-calling or personal attacks of any kind. Referring to the user as "Mr. Squiggles" or "user with non-English characters on the English Wikipedia" were not intended as name-calling or insulting in any way, but instead were simply my attempts to come up with a pronounceable moniker that I could use to refer to this editor, and a way to highlight the difficulties in both communication and relationship-building posed by choosing a username with non-English characters on a site that is dedicated to generating and maintaining English language content exclusively. Jumping to the conclusion that my messages triggered the user to stop editing is clearly not supported by any evidence, as they continued editing for several weeks after the conversation, and it has only been about 3 weeks since their last edit. People take wikibreaks. In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board. I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. It's increasingly hard to live with people like this. I guess the best I can come up with is that I will block you from editing if you do this kind of xenophobic mocking again. It seems silly to resort to threats, but you've made it clear you aren't interested in feedback. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I've lost confidence in ScottyWong's judgement and temperament to be an admin.

Also, I note that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has 94,000+ edits on this Wikipedia plus more on others. In all this time, nobody's seen a need to block him for his user name, his user page or anything else. Perhaps he should be the admin.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If we had a working community desysop protocol, this manner of belittling another user would be worth using it over. Seriously, SUL has been a thing for well over a decade. Courcelles (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

on a site that is dedicated to generating and maintaining English language content exclusively. The Wikimedia foundation runs projects covering 320 languages and ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ contributes to projects in multiple other languages. Why should they have to use an English/Latin name? 192.76.8.65 (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If you contribute to multiple language wikis, there is no requirement that your username must be the same on all wikis. No one has to have an English/Latin name on the English Wikipedia, but it certainly facilitates communication to do so. If I can't pronounce your name, how will I remember it? If my keyboard doesn't support typing your name, how will I navigate to your user talk page? These aren't just issues that apply to me, they apply to all non-Kannada speakers on the English Wikipedia, which is likely more than 99.99% of en-wiki editors. Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems to me that it's counterintuitive to create an account on the Japanese Wikipedia and choose a username comprised of Sanskrit characters. Is it allowed? Of course. Is it a good idea? In my opinion, no. This is not an inherently xenophobic viewpoint; if it is, then I guess xenophobia is enshrined in WP policy. Nowhere have I ever expressed hatred or negative feelings towards Kannada language speakers, people of Indian descent, or non-native-English speakers in general; precisely because I harbor no hatred or negative feelings for such people (and I'm confident that a deep look through my 16+ years of contributions here will not show any pattern of xenophobic behavior). Hell, even my wife is a non-native-English speaker, and her native language uses non-English characters. While I can see how a superficial glance at my comments might cause someone to believe they come from a place of racism or xenophobia, that is a gross misinterpretation of my intent. My comments were simply about common-sense communication efficiency. So I agree with Floquenbeam that threatening to block me is rather silly in this case. The conversation ended over a month ago, bringing it here now just feeds the drama machine. Again, I fully admit that I was frustrated when I wrote those messages (regardless of whether or not you agree with the reasons for my frustration), and my tone was borderline rude, and again, I apologize for that tone. The tone was likely a bit of an overreaction in hindsight, as was the creation of this ANI thread and the melodramatic threats to block me. It may be instructive to re-read the same policy that the Oxford IP noted above (WP:ADMINCOND), which reminds us that "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." I'm admitting my mistake here, while attempting to explain the rationale behind my comments for the benefit of those that have misinterpreted them. If that doesn't do it for you, or if you believe you've found a pattern of xenophobic behavior in my editing history, then by all means, block me and/or ship me off to Arbcom immediately. Otherwise, there isn't much more to say. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: for non-Latin names, I just copy and paste. For example, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. As for how to pronounce a word like that, I just don’t worry about sounding it out since I read silently.

English is definitely easier for me but this is a polyglot community. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And if you really need to know? just throw google translate at it, which has a pronunciation feature. In this case, I got this. Hi Malnadach! --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Or, if you don't want to use google translate, ask them! Redacted II (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously the comments are unacceptable, but it's always been amusing to me how upset some people get about fixing LINT errors. If the edits are, seriously, "trivial cosmetic non-issues," then why get so worked up? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Because of histories like these. It took us more than a year of begging to get this botop to even attempt to combine edits like (I'm not exaggerating here) fixing <font color="blue"> and <font color="purple">. Doesn't excuse making up belittling nicknames for a user one's in conflict with, but the bad blood here is fully justified. —Cryptic 20:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I've had my own technical disagreements with Malnadach (which IMO we've resolved through collaboration) but this is far beyond that. I don't think it matters if the bad blood is justified or not, it's a recurring pattern that Scottywong ends up with grudges and then goes past the line of what is acceptable (see 2019 thread). Legoktm (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And Malnadach Konkno gives their transliterated name on their userpage. <facepalm>. Jahaza (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like it if people used pronounceable latin-character handles on here too. I'd also like it if communism worked in real life rather than just on paper and that homophobes had their pubic hair permanently itch. I'm not getting any of that in reality and I'm aware that my preferences in this regard are ludicrous, which is why I've never asked anyone to abide by them, on here or anywhere else.

But especially not on an international worldwide project like Wikipedia, for very obvious reasons. WTF, Scotty?

Also, to make such a weird posting to someone and when challenged in the place designated for such challenges to announce I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me is conduct unbecoming. If that truly is your only response, then your resignation will be accepted here. — Trey Maturin™ 23:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I just came across this thread while stalking ANI cause I was completely bored. I certainly agree that Scottywong's behavior here is absolutely unacceptable for an administrator and just plain rude, incivil and xenophobic. And what the heck does disliking another person's user page have to deal with WP:CIR? I know people might not like others' userpage designs but Scottywong's comments were just plain incivil. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 00:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Referring to someone with a non-latin script username as "Mr. squiggles" is grossly unbecoming for an admin. ScottyWong should do the dignified thing at this point and resign, and if he does not an ArbCom case should be considered. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Good freaking grief. It's "hard" to use "ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ" as opposed to some insulting nickname? Hardly. I just cut-and-pasted it. Elapsed time: two-thirds of a second, or about a tenth as long as it took me to type this sentence. That's poor judgment for someone we trust to be an admin, and ScottyWong compounded it with that I'm-not-going-to-bother-with-this-thread response, something we'd consider misguided at best (and childish at worst) coming from a newbie with a hundred edits. Nor am I mollified by his pseudo-apology, somewhat negated by his if-you-don't-like-it-go-screw ending. "I had a bad day, I said some dumb things, I'm very sorry I did, I won't do it again. The end." Was something of the sort so very difficult to say? Ravenswing 01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Or, for that matter, click on the name/userpage-link, and copy/paste the Romanization (Malnadach Konkno) from there. (I'm sweating from the effort, I tell you!) – .Raven  ^.talk 04:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Pretty appalling communication, especially from an administrator, compounded further here by the "admittedly a bit blunt" handwave. At minimum, a blunt acceptance that this language is unacceptable and a similarly blunt (uncaveated) apology to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ would be in order. CMD (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• Scottywong may think that In my opinion, there was no reason to bring this conversation to the drama board, but literally everyone (12 editors) who has commented believes he was wrong, and I agree with them. The notion that your username that uses non-English characters, to the hideous font on your user page, to the annoying rainbow border on your user pages, is evidence of WP:CIR is nonsense, and reflects poorly on Scottywong's judgment and temperament as an admin. A better apology is warranted. starship.paint (exalt) 05:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong should be ashamed. To refer to a constructive editor like ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ as "Mr. Squiggles" is very disrespectful, and definitely goes against WP:ADMINCOND. I'm not impressed in the slightest with his half-assed apology either. He should resign to save ArbCom some time. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not yet prepared to call for Scottywong's resignation, but to say that I am appalled and deeply disappointed with this behavior is an understatement. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation projects operate in hundreds of languages and with many different scripts. Editors are free to move from project to project as they see fit, especially if their preferred work is gnoming. An administrator berating an editor with such vitriolic contempt is never acceptable, but when the insults focus on irrelevant trivialities like signature scripts, talk page borders and fonts, that is beyond the pale. There is no policy, guideline or community consensus forbidding fixing lint errors. That's not how I choose to spend my editing time, but Scottywong, it is utterly unacceptable for you to go into an enraged full-blown attack mode against an editor who has chosen to work on fixing errors. Your response, in my view, has been inadequate to date, and I encourage you to engage in some serious self-relection, and then offer a more appropriate response to the community's concerns. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• The original comment wasn't great, especially from an admin. But ScottyWong's 2 posts here are hard to read without cringing. A simple I'm sorry, frustration got the better of me etc would have fixed it. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• There has just been an impersonation attempt against scottywong see here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Not surprised, trolls will do anything to mislead others. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• The arrogance displayed in the comments that led to this thread and in the responses here are well below the standards we have for an administrator. The misreading of User:Floquenbeam's comment is amusing, the "confession" that their tone was "borderline rude" is revealing. Drmies (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have my reservations about Malnadach's editing style, and editing the userspace of an editor you've disagreed with (when they've explicitly prohibited your bot from doing so) is poor form, but Scotty's comments are disgraceful. I'm appalled that an admin would think that's an appropriate way to communicate and then just brush it off as being "too blunt". The berating tone I could just about look past with the half-arsed apology as long as there was an undertaking to bring issues to this board in future, but the borderline racism/xenophobia needs to be addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe this is a one-off thing from ScottyWong, at least not the contention against Malnadach. This goes back for a while. ScottyWong has had problems with MalnadachBot since at least January 2022, when he proposed its removal as an active bot, per the WP:COSMETICBOT policy. Most of his arguments were reasoned and in-depth, but certain comments may inform his current frustration (apologies for not giving diffs, the archive page didn't retain them):
  • If this bot operator claims that he is not capable of fixing all the errors on a page in a single edit, or that his code is so inefficient that it produces "false positives" and requires him to manually supervise every edit, then I think we should find a different bot operator.
  • I realize I'm probably being annoying by continuing to complain about this bot operator and the tasks he's carrying out, but it really is supremely annoying to me.
  • The vast majority of this bot's work is not worth the disruption it's causing to the project.

Of course, everyone has the right to be frustrated, and the point of bringing this up is not to say don't ever be upset about things. Rather this is to provide context as to how this confrontation built up to begin with. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Could we close this thread now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  With what action taken against whom? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think any action is needed. Everyone have learned something from the thread, so no need to prolong it further. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree strongly. The admin behaviour decribed here is appalling, as is the "digging in" response we've had. I think we need to see some genuine reflection along the lines Cullen328 suggests, or I think further action is needed (by the community or by ArbCom). No way should this just be closed at this point. (And, I mean no offence CactiStaccingCrane, but I think you've misjudged it badly.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  As much as it might be desirable to avoid building a mountain out of a molehill, closing this now would give the impression that a long-time admin can shrug off complaints of uncivil behavior. That isn't the message we really want to send around here. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I also don't think it should be closed, at least while Scottywong is sticking their head in the sand, refusing to engage with this conversation and not admitting that their actions were not acceptable. I'm not calling for a desysop here, unless there is a complete and utter lack of awareness and actions (which while they refuse to engage is heading that direction.) I think Scottywong needs to reengage with this conversation and read the room. Canterbury Tail talk 13:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  My question here is that is it really worth it to keep the ANI thread open though? Closing the thread does not mean "ScottyWong has a free pass on his behavior", rather it is giving time for everyone to think about the issue. I don't think that bashing on people's mistakes and then making use of their angry temperament (OooOoH they don't sorry about their bad bad behavior), accusing them of being incompetent and then ban them is helpful. If you want to sanction ScottyWong, make a separate thread about that. Otherwise, it's helpful for all of us to drop the stick and let ScottyWong take time to learn the lesson here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm aware that he is an administrator, but administrator are human too. Humans do make mistakes, lots of it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  And if a person in a position of trust continues to make more than an acceptable number of mistakes, what should we do then? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Take to ArbCom or make another thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Another thread? That's what this is, after previous ones! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• As difficult as it is to express contrition amongst the uproar of criticism here, and while I feel that I've already apologized twice in my comments above, it seems that my words aren't being interpreted as genuine, so I'd like to try one last time to clear things up: I'd like to formally retract the messages I posted a month ago on ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's user talk page. Those messages were written while I was in a frustrated state, and I said some things I shouldn't have. Particularly, the "Mr. Squiggles" comment about this user's non-English username, while not intended to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic; was still insensitive and an unnecessary addition to the primary topic I wanted to discuss with the user. Therefore, again, I apologize to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ for the rude comments. I would post this apology on the user's talk page, but they've asked me to refrain from posting on their user talk page, and I've always intended to respect that request. If anyone else feels the need to link to or copy/paste this apology to the user's talk page, I'd be ok with that. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, those half-arsed apologies above for being "a bit blunt" didn't come close, especially coupled with your digging-in on the username issue. And, I know it's not nice to be exposed in public like this. Now, this apology is a lot better, and a good start. But there's a few things that still trouble me. Firstly, one specific - I'd like to hear you fully accept that it's entirely acceptable for users to have usernames in any script that's allowed by policy on this multi-national project. More generally, you've had angry episodes like this in the past, and it's just not acceptable for the community to have such a hair-trigger potential anger response from an admin hanging over our heads. In between, you do some fine work, and you've made some great contributions - and I want to keep that. But we just can't have any more of these episodes. So, do you have any ideas of how you might try to manage your anger in the future? I do hope so, because I really do think we need to see some serious long-term reflection here. And sorry if any of this comes across as patronising. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're not helping the situation. Don't try to force an apology. It's better to respect a person's pride and let it be. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. If there was a simple way to de-sysop Scotty, it would be worth pursuing. But there isn’t. So we either go to ArbCom or live with Scotty. Either approach has a cost to the community in terms of time and tension.

  If we’re going to live with Scotty as an admin, I think we’ve collectively made our point here.

  if we’re not, then take it to ArbCom. Further discussion in this venue just degrades the community zeitgeist. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  CactiStaccingCrane, Again, I think you are misreading this badly, and you have completely failed to understand my points. I am not trying to force an apology - I never would, because a forced apology is not an apology at all. But we absolutely should not "respect a person's pride and let it be" in a case like this. If we have serious reservations about someone's aptitude for a role, how can you even think that's a remotely acceptable approach? The community has a concern with an admin's attitude, and you think we should priortise the admin's pride? I'm almost speechless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  The reservations I'm seeing here—and one that I share—is that you haven't shown an understanding of why this is a problem. At the top of the post, you seemed to indicate that this was a trivial or harmless matter, and that you thought that this was within acceptable limits of admin conduct. It's this dismissiveness that brought it from an unfortunate mistake to a question of whether you understand the issue. It was only after a strong negative response and threats of desysopping that you gave the issue any attention. Whether this is the case or not, it may give the impression to the community that you're just "going through the motions" of expressing remorse without actually taking into consideration why messages like this are unhelpful in a collaborative environment, let alone from an admin. There are venues for solving disputes with editors like this. Going to their talk page and calling them incompetent (for any reason, let alone for having a foreign username or a customized userpage) is not one of those venues, and we should be able to take it for granted that admins know this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  It was only after a strong negative response and threats of desysopping that you gave the issue any attention As much as I believe this demanded a response, you can't move the goalposts and insinuate that a now-given apology doesn't matter because it wasn't given prior to all of the criticism. That's unfair and you need to give someone a chance to properly atone and reflect on their own actions. If that's unacceptable, then A. B. is right that there's really no choice but to close this down and make an ArbCom request. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, I mostly agree with User:WaltCip here. We can't demand that someone respond to feedback, and then condemn them for not responding before we made the demand. We really should allow time for cooling off and thinking - the proper response should not be judged on how quickly it was or was not made, but on how sincere it is in the cold light of time. Saying that, I don't think we're at "ArbCom or nothing" yet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  The gist of my comment is this: "your initial response doubled down on the more problematic behavior, and you recanted that after the non-apology was heavily criticized, but you still haven't shown an understanding of why it's an issue, which is what we actually wanted." Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, "I won't be monitoring this thread, so please send a message to my talk page if there is anything else that urgently requires a response from me"--like this isn't important. *sigh* Drmies (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• I suspect I would be indeffed without a conversation if I called another editor Mr Squiggles because of their name. Do admins get like 3 free racisms before other admins act? Very Average Editor (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
• So I've refrained from commenting since this morning hoping Scotty would come back with a grovelling sincere apology .... Indeed their latest apology is sincere however in that apology they state "Particularly, the "Mr. Squiggles" comment about this user's non-English username, while not intended to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic; was still insensitive and an unnecessary" which to me is utter bs.

You don't take the mick out of someone's name unless you're intentionally trying to be insulting, belittling, or xenophobic ? (Of course friends can have a laugh over each others names but these 2 aren't friends nor quite clearly was it intended as a joke). Maybe I'm reading it wrong but their apology also reads like they're sorry they got caught out not sorry for what was said but again maybe I've read it wrong.

Either way Scotty should resign or this should be sent to Arbcom, Not that I ever would but if I made such a comment like Scottys I would expect a very long block for it. –Davey2010^Talk 16:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Scotty's comments were stupid, and so was his "I'm not monitoring this thread" (ANI flu?) And then non-apologies, and then an apology sandwiched with sniping at the uproar of criticism here (so criticizing an admin for calling a constructive editor "Mr. Squiggles" is uncalled for, but said admin's comments aren't?) I say give him one more chance at an apology that addresses the inappropriateness of his comments and acknowledges why the uproar, and otherwise take it to ArbCom for a desysopping. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I've also noticed Malnadach's and their bot's lack of editing and wondered why that was. If it really is because of Scotty's comments that is not only sad but a loss to the project. Scotty has for a while now tried to stop or block Malnadach's bot in everyway possible and when after each one failed, tried from a different angle. That lead to childishly reverting edits that fixed lint issues on their talk page. Even if Scotty's admin isn't taken away, they should at minimum be banned from anything Lint related as they've clearly shown this issue is too much for them. And yes, that also includes no reverting Lint fixes. Gonnym (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Although Malnadach's departure from the project is definitely coincident with Scotty's abusive message, it's hard for me to make that connection with any firm confidence. There could also have been health-related or work-related reasons involved behind the scenes which we wouldn't know about. Certainly it's a noteworthy coincidence and it would probably meet the preponderance of the evidence standard if brought before a judge, but it's not proof. This is notwithstanding the remainder of the content in your message which I feel is absolutely correct. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Scotty should be ashamed of his comments and actions, and his insincere apologies only make things worse. He also doesn't seem to recognise exactly why this is an issue. Scotty should resign as an admin lest he face an ArbCom case. Frankly if this wasn't a tenured admin I think the punishments for making such comments would have been far more severe. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• These comments are, frankly, absolutely disgusting and entirely unbecoming of any editor, let alone an admin - regardless of your opinions on linting fixes (in my opinion they're fairly useful but still), this kind of attitude and behaviour is deeply offensive and concerning. Remagoxer ^(talk) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a question: can ADMINs be blocked indef? Cause Scotty needs to be.

I'm 100% not an expert with Wikipedia policy, but I've seen people be banned for less. Redacted II (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but in practice an admin wouldn't get blocked indefinitely unless they're community or arbcom-banned. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Clearly the community is not happy with Scotty's comments or his string of apologies. No further point is served by the continued pile-on of angry rebukes. Either propose a sanction below or take it to ArbCom. This venue does not exist for the purpose of letting y'all get in your free shots at this week's latest target, no matter how guilty they are. It's time to move this forward with an aim toward a constructive resolution. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Scotty having (as multiple people indicated) lost the trust an admin/sysop is expected to keep, hia resignation or removal as sysop would seem an obvious step. Unfortunately the "removal" process appears to have become "broken" (as also indicated here). I don't know what it would take to fix that, but the idea that admins/sysops can go bad without anyone being able to take that bit away strikes me as frightening. – .Raven  ^.talk 02:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  How is the removal of adminship "broken"? Not one editor in this thread who thinks Scottywong should not be an admin has filed an arbitration request at the time of my comment. No one has even tried to remove his sysop bit. Lightoil (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect many editors would like to see a case request filed, but really don't want to be the one to do it. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's it precisely. ArbCom is a grueling, demanding process that opens people up to insane levels of speculation & scrutiny. So people don't want to go there unless the problem is absolutely intractable, or else they have seriously damning evidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Does Scottywong have a history of these sorts of comments, or is this a one-off? BilledMammal (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  There's this 2019 thread about this comment and this edit summary, and this uh 2014 thread. So, kinda? Other editors may have more examples.

  I like to believe that if an editor whose million-edit bot I found annoying and useless, which I had tried multiple times to get consensus to shut down, and which I specifically ignored by name on my watchlist and tagged my talkpage archives to skip, had decided to edit those talkpage archives with their main account, I would at least have deleted that first paragraph that comes off as super racist, and not called their competence into question over their userpage aesthetics, but I would imagine myself feeling deliberately provoked (and probably would passive-aggressively revert my talkpage archives to their prior, lint error generating state).

  Scotty has said some dumb and mean things, and doesn't appear to grasp why people are so upset about them, but I don't believe everyone here grasps why he was so upset in the first place. I don't believe ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was deliberately baiting Scotty, but given their history the choice to edit Scotty's talkpage archives was certainly an audacious one, and I am curious as to why he felt it necessary.

  Not excusing Scotty's comments or his evident inability to realize that unintentionally racist still counts as racist, but ignoring the context and history here doesn't seem like the route to the right outcome. Kindly, Folly Mox (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

'Wong' is not a common English surname. Scotty should be made to change his name to 'ScottyKing'.  Tewdar  12:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC) There's certainly a lot to be said about how reprehensible Scotty's behavior is, but let's not go further down this path with sort of tit-for-tat ad hominem. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Yeah, you're right, someone might notice that 'Tewdar' is not a very common English name either.  Tewdar  14:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposal for a one-way IBAN for Scottywong with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

While, from ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's tone, they were not driven off the project by Scotty's comments, as some above have postulated, the comments are no more acceptable for it. This is basically the bare minimum action, and I would advise Scotty to agree to a voluntary one-way IBAN and avoid ArbCom (or a CBAN, even?) Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

(If you didn't see the middle of the discussion and think an IBAN is not warranted for a supposed lack of long-term problems: Special:Diff/1158020095.) Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

IBAN is Indefinite Ban, right? (I really don't know the acronyms)

If so, then,

SUPPORT Saying such xenophobic statements as Scotty used is unacceptable for even the newest editors. For an ADMIN, it's just indescribable. Redacted II (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No, IBAN is interaction ban. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Then:

OPPOSE We can't let Scotty get away with how they treated ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. The bare minimum is an indefinite ban. Just because Scotty is an ADMIN doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Redacted II (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, an indefinite ban is the maximum. I don’t know what more you could do anything more to him after banning him from the site forever. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I dunno, a community ban isn't as bad as someone taking away my right to eat cookies. BTW, the proposal for an IBAN is pretty silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

True, but in a case like this, the minimum "sentence" (in lack of a better word) is the maximum sentence: indefinite ban. Redacted II (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I echo Bbb23's sentients - ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ was driven off the site and is very unlikely to ever return, Again either Scotty should resign or we should all take a trip to Arbcom. In my humble opinion IBANNING doesn't even scratch the surface here. –Davey2010^Talk 01:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Scotty's comments are horrible, and an IBAN is not enough. At the very least, Scotty should lose his admin status. I'm pretty sure ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ has been driven off the site, as they haven't edited since early May. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a bare minimum, without prejudice against more severe sanctions and/or an ArbCom case request. I agree that this is insufficient given the severity of the PAs, but that doesn't strike me as a good reason to oppose this sanction. Sanctions are meant to be preventative and it seems to me that, should ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ return to editing, this sanction would provide such a function. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• An IBAN for a single interaction seems unnecessary. BilledMammal (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: What is the point of banning any interaction between two users when their only interaction (written interaction) involved ScottyWong posting two comments at Malnadach's talk page? What is this supposed to achieve? Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nythar, it is a one-way IBAN on Scottywong, first off. While the incidents mentioned here are not in themselves particularly uncivil, they show Scottywong has an issue with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, and the comments which are the focus of this discussion show he will make offensive comments to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ and only sort of apologize. Ergo, it seems reasonable to expect further disruption from such.

  And then again, the IBAN was proposed to encourage movement towards sanctions of some kind by presenting the bare minimum option. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose seems pointless to me. The prior interaction from 2022 shows that Scottywong didn't like how ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ operated their bot, but that's hardly grounds for an iban. If a sanction is appropriate, this is not the correct one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment:: Yes, as I said in proposing the IBAN, it is the bare minimum. But I proposed it mainly to move the discussion beyond a continuous stream of denunciations of Scotty's comments to action. Y'all could put your money where your mouths are and take it to ArbCom, regardless of this. SamX understood this. Additionally, ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ could have temporarily stopped editing for any number of reasons, this incident being one. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  In light of my comment that preceded this proposal, I do appreciate your rationale for proposing this sanction even if I don't agree that this is the correct path forward. I'll admit that I'm conflicted as to how this should be handled. I understand the calls for Scotty to be desysopped, but -- unless I'm missing something, which is certainly possible -- this doesn't seem to involve his use of the tools. I'm aware that admins can and have been desysopped in cases that did not involve misuse of the tools, but in this case I feel that the calls for desysop have an unattractively punitive flavor. While it is natural to be angered at boorish behavior from an admin, I'm not comfortable with the mob mentality that I've detected here. We don't desysop people to punish them or to get our pound of flesh. If we want to desysop Scotty because we've genuinely lost faith in him after this one incident that was reported a month later by an IP who made no effort to address this with Scotty before escalating it to ANI, then fine. Perhaps we are right to lose faith in him. And perhaps we are right to judge his apologies harshly, even if it is probably true that most of us would respond poorly if we were ambushed by an ANI thread like this one. When I reread Scottywong's comments, I see very little to defend. But something about the way this thread has been conducted just doesn't feel right. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to add a comment here (not sure if there's somewhere better, but LEPRICAVARK's comments do strike a note) "But something about the way this thread has been conducted just doesn't feel right": Yes, for sure, I feel the same way (even though I also see little to defend in Scottywong's comments). Trial by ANI is a horrible way to deal with issues like this, and it can make it sound like the accused is the devil incarnate. An angry outburst in public is really a very poor thing by which to judge a fellow human - and I say that after having met people who I like a lot in real life, but who have been excoriated here at ANI (and even blocked/banned/desysoped). When does community discussion and concensus become a knee-jerk baying mob? I'm not saying that's happened here, but I've definitely seen occasions when it's come too close for comfort. So what should we do about a contributor who, with hindsight, might not be a good fit for admin after all, but who is fundamentally a decent person who just has too many off days? I really don't know. I just wish there was something better than this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am satisfied with Scottywong's latest apology and I am sure he will not try anything further with ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, as obviously, harsh consequences await there. starship.paint (exalt) 07:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose since IBANning against someone who appears to have left the project is pointless. Contrary to the half baked apologies above, Scottywong has said in Wikipediocracy today that there is no evidence that Malnadach was "sufficiently offended" by their messages. This indicates to me that Scottywong doesn't really understand the problem with their comments, which would cause them to behave the same way with other editors. This IBAN does not address the core problem, which is Scottywong's WP:ADMINCOND failure and behaviour which is unacceptable in a diverse project like Wikipedia. Send this to Arbcom please. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as insufficient. If an admin needs an IBAN from someone, that just shows they should not be an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC) -- Switch to Support per Tamzin's reasoning below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Boing! said Zebedee: Makes sense, but I would like to point out Ritchie333 received a two-way IBAN with Praxidicae from ArbCom (when already an admin). So it's not unprecedented. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Support. I do not see how any further communication from Scottywong to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ could be constructive.  — Freoh 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support, without prejudice against further sanctions. I dismiss out of hand any opposition based on the fact that Malnadach currently isn't editing. Maybe they'll return tomorrow, or in a year, or in 10 years. Whenever they do, maybe Scotty will still be editing then, and will have still not put the stick down about these linter fixes. (FWIW I've shared some of those concerns, but the point is that Scotty isn't able to express that without getting incivil, it seems.) Or maybe an IBAN would hasten Malnadach' return. It's the latter possibility that drives me to support more than anything, because I think that, as a practical matter, if Scotty were to say anything remotely incivil to Malnadach in the future, there are a number of admins who would be willing to make that block, with or without an IBAN. But in terms of signaling to Malnadach that the community won't ignore harassment of them, and signaling the same to all editors who might be in a similar situaton, I think an IBAN is more powerful than a mere lurking block threat. If further community or ArbCom sanctions are warranted, so be it, but that's never been a reason not to take the first step. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Rosguill's concern below is reasonable. I'd have no problem with a provision that Malnadach can unilaterally terminate the IBAN at any time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I'm on the fence about what sort of response this warrants, and I think both the "this is unacceptable" and the "avoid an angry mob" camps have good points. But I find Tamzin's argument convincing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose 1-way IBANs can often be burdensome even for the person "benefited" by the ban, as they would now have the burden of not acting in ways that could be interpreted as griefing against the IBANed editor. IBANs are only called for in cases of protracted harassment, when the affected editor is themselves in favor of the arrangement. I don't think imposing this with Malnadach in absentia is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Send to Arbcom [Result: Sent]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the main thread above, more than two dozen editors have criticised Scottywong for his comments and there is unanimous agreement that his comments are incompatible with how admins are expected to behave. This indicates that Scottywong has lost the trust of community to continue to hold adminship. Since desysopping someone is not within the remit of AN/I, the thread should be closed and an Arbcom request should be filed. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Since his last comment in this thread on June 1 and claiming to not monitor this, Scottywong has continued to discuss this on Wikipediocracy (members only thread) and making comments which are contrary to his apologies above. He has claimed in Wikipediocracy that there is no evidence that Malnadach was "sufficiently offended" by his comments, that it is "pure bullsh*t" that anyone would infer his comments as racist or xenophobic. This shows that his apologies above are not sincere; he is just pretending to show remorse onwiki to escape sanctions. If we had a community based desysop procedure, this would have been more than enough to invoke it. However in absence of that, we should file a formal request for arbitration. 58.182.35.249 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I do actually think Scottywong's apology is sincere, at least in part. I think he does feel remorse for the way he spoke to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (whose name, incidentally, I copied and pasted in just a few seconds). But I don't see a full appreciation for how unaccpetable his conduct was, and continues to be, as an admin in response to criticism. So I think this should go to ARBCOM, for a couple of reasons. One is that we've seen a problematic aggressive attitude from Scottywong a number of times now (which can be brought up in evidence if there's a case, I don't want to relitigate them here). We've seen some sort of regret/apology in past cases too, but I see a repeated anger/aggression issue. That aggression, even if it shows rarely, is not compatible with being an admin. Also, Scottywong is still railing (at another site) against Wikipedia's policy of allowing multiple scripts/alphabets in usernames when communicating on the English language project. Now, he can dislike it - I'm sure we all have policy aspects that we dislike. But unless he can change it via consensus, he has to accept it. In fact, I'd say he committed to upholding it by accepting the admin role - or, at the very least, not openly attacking other editors for doing something perfectly in line with that policy. That his dislike for a piece of policy can trigger such anger (and more than a hint of arrogance) also makes Scottywong unsuitable for admin, in my view. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Respectfully, perfectly in line with is an overstatement. WP: LATINPLEASE (in Wikipedia:Username policy) does say To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with [usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet] are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature. Policy "encourages" a lot of things that are considered best practices, and it's a vague term that covers varying strengths of consensuses, but my reading is that User:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ would need to add a transliteration of his username to his signature in order to be perfectly in line with policy.

  I'm also minded of a courtesy blanked RfA from a few years ago where about half of the opposers took issue with the candidate's non-Latin username, so I'm feeling what Scottywong attributes to accessibility concerns may have some level of community buy-in. I disagree cos I can copypaste. Respectfully again, just in case it got lost in the nitpick, Folly Mox (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  OK, perhaps not "perfectly", fair enough. But if something is allowed by policy, attacking people for being in line with it like that is just not acceptable, in my view. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. Emotions inform our actions, but cannot excuse them. Folly Mox (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  We're in tangent mode here, but FWIW, IMO the main accessibility issue with non-Latin names isn't addressing them in conversation, it's finding them when you're trying to look for their edits or ping them. It's all easy enough to do a 2 second copy-paste or type out Malnadach in this conversation, but if I'm trying to find their user page next month to follow up with them on something, it's going to take me a significant amount of scrolling through page histories to find them even if I can remember how to say their name out loud. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Non-Latin name users should not suffer discrimination (especially due to SUL) let alone being driven out of the project. ibicdlcod (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Referal to Arbcom is not merited for this, very poor, interaction between and Admin. and a user. FWIW, I am opposed to non-Latin user names but the frustrated interaction here was out of order. There has been an puerile outburst of frustration and a largely defective apology. In the wider scheme of things, while sub-optimal, it is more of a strike along the lines of 3 strikes and you're out, rather than an gross violation requiring immediate action. On balance, warnings given, acknowledgement of the errors and assurances for the future seems an appropriate way forward. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• One doesn't need permission to send a request to ArbCom, because in the end, the ones granting permission will be the arbitrators and not the community. The Wikipediocracy comments disturb me, at any rate. I now no longer feel the apology has any standing. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I hold no trust or confidence in this admin and if what the IP is saying is true then his apologies really do mean nothing, Given he seemingly doesn't want to resign, this should then go to Arbcom. –Davey2010^Talk 13:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Personally, I don't understand why we allow IPs to make proposals such as these. SN54129 15:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why shouldn't we? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I am extremely disappointed to see Scottywong's xenophobic comments at ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ's talk page. Comments like those are unacceptable, and Scottywong has lost my trust as an admin. People are right about their reservations of the apology above. Repeated emphasis on his intention, and how he wasn't "trying to be racist or xenophobic" didn't help a bit in making him come across as being genuinely remorseful. That kind of logic is equivalent to saying "it was a joke guys" after making racist remarks. The issue is not on whether he meant it as insulting or not, it is about whether he had the slightest idea on how his comments are seen as such. The comments at WPO continue to show his inability to get the point. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Support. Wikipedia administration is a privilege, not a right. Scottywong has demonstrated that he has never fully grasped Wikipedia's five pillars.  — Freoh 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• You realize that this is not a way to send anything to ArbCom? The next person coming here to post a meaningless "Support" in boldface should instead file a case request. CandyScythe (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  There's nothing wrong with checking to see if there's a consensus first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Consensus for what?—Alalch E. 17:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Consensus, or general agreement, that this needs to be taken to Arbcom - what else did you think I meant? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  There was nothing else, I just wanted to be sure as it didn't quite make sense. Basically, I disagree that there's nothing wrong. That decision is not subject to consensus under arbitration rules. Anyone can submit this request and a plurality of editors can't decide about that on another's behalf, so as to prevent or dictate that it be done. This discussion creates a distorted image of how the process operates. It could actually prevent someone from filing a report because they are waiting to see what the outcome could be and the outcome could be procedural. This should probably stop.—Alalch E. 19:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Further, this is basically a list of people who would like someone to submit a request but don't feel confident writing it themselves, so it evokes the question of why are they not confident. If so many people appear reluctant, it could influence someone who otherwise would have done it to also become reluctant.—Alalch E. 19:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, got you, I understand what you mean now. I can see why someone might want to check if there's support first - but yes, anyone can just go ahead with it. (And I suspect there might be an element of "I hope someone else will do it to save me the effort" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: But I still think no one should oppose the IBAN because it "doesn't go far enough" — the arbs may reject this case, or they may choose to simply warn Scotty, but we can always have the IBAN as a safety net. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 17:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support that it is the rough consensus of the community that ArbCom should consider whether Scottywong should be desysopped. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support I think I generally agree with Leaky caldron's analysis here, but the continued whingeing at the other website (which I have not read myself) appears to be giving a lot of people pause. If editors genuinely feel that they have lost confidence in Scottywong's ability to use admin tools, an ArbCom request is the correct path forward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support ScottyWong has lost the confidence of the community in his admin abilities. They have bullied an editor off the project. Why should they still be an admin? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support and filed - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scottywong ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, GhostOfDanGurney, for doing this. This ANI thread has long outlived it usefulness especially since there's no provision for community desysopping. ArbCom's a more appropriate venue for deciding if that's called for. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

A Policy Suggestion

It is pointed out that the community doesn't have the authority to send a case to ArbCom. The community only has the authority to state that it requests that ArbCom take up a case that the community is unable to resolve. There are at least two types of cases that the community is unable to resolve. The first is loss of confidence in an administrator. Although the administrator is an administrator because the community had confidence in them, the community does not have the power to withdraw that confidence. The second is editors whose conduct divides and polarizes the community. I suggest that the community, which elects the ArbCom, should have the authority to instruct the ArbCom to take up a case. I am mentioning this here, and am aware that WP:ANI isn't the forum to act on this idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems similar to the recent RFC at WP:VPP, now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 181#RfC on a procedural community desysop. It's not a complete match but seems somewhere between the second and third alternative proposals. The only proposal that passed was the first alternative, which doesn't seem to apply here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason why it can't. ArbCom members needn't give any special weight to a 'community consensus' requesting a case be heard, aside from any normal weight they would give to statements made on the case request. The main benefit of this 'referral' is really that a neutral closer would be filing the case request, which immunises any single person from the difficult position of being the case filer. There's not really a policy issue with that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that ArbCom members are all volunteers, I don't see any way to compel them to do anything. And I really don't see any need anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I'm not sure a policy change is needed. The community can propose and enact a motion to call for anything. We could have a community motion that dogs are better pets than cats, if we wanted. And if the enactment of a resolution would involve notifying some other body, that's something that can be done by the closer, with a link back to the discussion. "I am filing this arbitration request as closer of an AN/I discussion, which resolved that $issue merits ArbCom attention to look into <claims of admin misconduct|an intractable dispute>. Here is a basic summary of the facts..." The only issue would be if the receiving body sees a problem with that approach, but I don't think that's very likely in the case of ArbCom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scottywong. I recommend closing this thread now that this ArbCom request has been made. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Mitrayasna and Ashkan3de (edit: + nationalistic agenda + ethnic suppression + Persian sockpuppetry block + edit warring)

EDIT: This post has been here over a week, but only attracted 1 reply, by Mitrayasna. Because I believe M's behaviour and contributions are mostly harmful to Wikipedia and wasting many people's time, I'll try to further clarify this in updates under M's reply (while the text before that should probably stay intact, if only to show how M seems to deflect the issues raised, or only seems concerned about a personal conviction within a content dispute).Joortje1 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Mitrayasna and User:Ashkan3de both insist on inclusion of a text that contains obvious interpunction problems, an unreliable (probably WP:CIRCULAR) source, and a misrepresented source: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] etc.

They mostly responded WP:Listen to my and 3 other users' comments about this text and related illustrations on Talk:Animation, and to my comments, suggestions and questions on User talk:Mitrayasna, User talk:Ashkan3de and Talk:Early history of animation.

Also note behaviour that seems to indicate:

WP:TAGTEAM (if not WP:SOCKPUPPETRY): Ashkan3de only started editing on the English pages after a dispute about Mitrayasna's edits, and mainly kept placing the disputed text and related imagery. While Mitrayasna has stopped this after a 24h block, Ashkan3de continues.

WP:NOTHERE apart from insisting on inclusion of obvious interpunction errors, from glancing over Special:Contributions/Mitrayasna, this editor seems more concerned about a nationalistic/ethnic agenda than about proper encyclopedic information. Much of this gets reverted back and forth and causes disputes, see for instance: [72] [73]

WP:PLAGIARISM see [74]

Misrepresentation of discussion: [75]

Joortje1 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It is about the difference of images on a cup. There was information about this on this article's Wikipedia page before my edits, I just expanded it. And I cited a book by Giannalberto Bendazzi, one of the most famous researchers in this field. I find it very strange that he is determined to exclude the views of one of animation's greatest historians.

I hope they have no racist motives.

Mitrayasna (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have actually used Bendazzi's work as a source for several contributions to Early history of animation, while the disputed misquotation seriously misrepresents his view, as explained to Mitrayasna multiple times by at least 3 others (see: [76]). The suggestion of racist motives is strange and quite offensive imho. Joortje1 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Updates/edited statements: NOTHERE/NPOV: –nationalistic agenda: many of the contributions by Mitrayasna (M) that I checked are about Iran purportedly having pioneered whatever an artcile is about, e.g. trousers [77], the necktie [78], or ice hockey [79]. Iranian history could very well just be M's favourite topic and Iran is actually home to one of the world's oldest civilizations, but M seems to approach it as some kind of contest, where Iran has to be the first and to be as prominently represented as possible, naturally causing many disputes. –ethnic agenda: I know little about the tensions concerning Kurds in Iran and will try to keep a neutral pov (despite my strong gut feelings). Some of M's edits look very much like M wants to suppress certain claims about Kurdish culture, by erasing them or claiming them as Iranian. M was very much involved in trying to get rid of Kurdish aspects from pages about the Death of Mahsa Amini and the subsequent protests [80], [81][82][83][84][85][86][87] (and dozens more diffs to be found in Special:Contributions/Mitrayasna) The background of this ethnic suppression was more clearly discussed on Talk:Death of Mahsa_Amini#Name Also note M's edit on Gorani language[88]: there are 3 citations that purportedly back the claim "since the 20th century, most orientalists and linguists consider it a northwest Iranian language, which is separate from the Kurdish language." It's far from what I can gather from these sources. It's as if M. just googled for sources with the terms "zaza gorani non kurdish" (see the cited google book urls) and didn't care about what's actually written there. (Unfortunately, disagreeing users didn't come up with a better solution than to change the text into "But since the 20th century, some orientalists who are not linguist, neither have any language about the Kurdish or any other languages in the region consider it a 'northwest Iranian' language, which is separate from the Kurdish language.")

deflection of raised concerns: M claimed a Kurdish spelling of Mahsa Amini name was "controversial content"[89]. When asked why, M just maintained that this name has no place outside her biography [90].

sockpuppetry: On 3 June, M and A received indefinite blocks on fa.wikipedia, more or less simultaeneously and with each other's names mentioned in connection to the reason for the block. Apparently this is for sockpuppetry, but google translate isn't always clear enough (see: [91]). I asked PhilKnight whether the Persian block was enough reason for a block of their en.wikipedia accounts. After Phil felt reluctant due to the uncertainties in google translate, I asked to investigate with CheckUser. To my surprise, Phil couldn't find any connection [92]. I looked a bit further into the Persian block, and from what I can gather through google translations, Ashkan3de admitted to also have the account Sasan3de. When the Ashkan3de account was inspected the Mitrayasna account popped up.[93] I could not find any previous suspicion of a link between those accounts on the Persian pages, so I still believe sockpuppetry is extremely likely.

Edit warring: [94],[95], [96] and [97], [98], [99], [100] and [101], [102], [103], [104]). For the edit warring on the Animation topic (mostly with me, I confess I initially got carried away and didn't know what better to do then to revert M and A's problematic text), M received a 24h block [105].

WP:PLAGIARISM see [106][107]

Almost every time I check some of M's contributions (which I feel I have done way too much), I find more problematic elements (I have seen more than I have reported here). Although some of it intrigues me, it's not something I really enjoy doing. I understand it may come across as a spiteful reaction to an irrelevant bit of edit warring, but I believe that the patterns that I notice in M's edits seems too structural and harmful to just let go. Joortje1 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Problem with user

I need to raise an issue with ČugaĎ, a user who repeatedly goes around adding "[Country] films" and "Horror films" categories to films that are already in "[Country] horror films" categories, in defiance of duplicate categorization rules. Even more importantly, they've now ignored three prior requests to stop doing that — they stopped for a while after I threatened to take it to ANI the third time, but then they started up again yesterday. In addition, they're sometimes also adding films to questionable genre categories that aren't properly supported at all, such as filing Comedown in Category:Comedy films and Lead Me Astray in Category:Fantasy films even though neither the articles' text nor their IMDb profiles suggest that those genre labels would be accurate in any way.

Basically, it's becoming tiresome to have to clean up after them, but asking them to stop clearly isn't making them stop. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a topic ban on categorization is warranted. CugaD seem to be an otherwise productive editor who just cannot grasp categorization guidelines. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 14:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, edits otherwise identical to ČugaĎ's, adding "[Country] films" and/or "Horror films" categories to films that are already in the appropriate "[Country] horror films" intersection, are now happening by the hand of logged-out IP 204.68.105.89. So clearly ČugaĎ didn't get the message, which was "stop doing this" rather than "log out and then keep doing this". Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Titus Gold - Civil POV Pushing and Disruptive Editing. Possible Sock Puppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We need to talk about Titus Gold.

Yesterday he moved the page Prince of Wales's feathers to Three feathers. The move was undiscussed, and appears to be tendatious as it is clearly not an uncontroversial move, the controversy being very much a matter of discussion on talk:Prince of Wales(multiple sections, but, e.g. the arms section: Talk:Prince of Wales#Arms subsection), where Titus Gold has thus far been a lone voice in his attempts to remove any link between the feathers and the prince of Wales. This move was therefore WP:POINTy and disruptive.

It is by no means the first disruptive page move, though. So far this year Titus Gold has moved 113 pages plus their associated talk pages, and this year is not unusual. Very many of these have been reverted, For instance, this one from earlier this month.[108]. Some of the page moves are uncontested, but even then, disruption arises, for instance, where a whole RM is required some time later to put back an unnoticed problematic move.[109].

The theme of contested moves (and many are contested) is usually separation of mention of England alongside Wales, as the editor has clear issues with WP:NPOV on this point.

NPOV behaviour is not limited to page moves, and Titus Gold has tested limits of editor patience, e.g. in this discussion:[110]. A very clear case of Civil POV Pushing.

There have been many informal attempts to address this behaviour. On WikiProject Wales, there is this thread which raised many serious issues, and in which Titus Gold appeared to be engaged: [111]

Yet problems persisted, and calls for a topic ban were reiterated: [112]

Indeed, a tour through the WikiProject Wales archives has a litany of threads dealing with issues arising from this editor.

He does not archive his talk page, but there have been many attempts to engage and assist on that page. This snapshot [113] is typical, and has three of the issues that keep arising, being:

1. Undiscussed page moves (despite him saying he will take it into account, he continued to make such moves)
2. Neutrality of articles (and his repeated acting without establishing consensus - in that case in removing a maintenance template)
3. His attempts to remove any mention of “England & Wales” together on Wikipedia.

Another talk page snapshot [114] shows examples of other problems: recreating pages that were recently deleted at AfD, the fact that many of his creations have to be taken to AfD, creation of categories that also need addressing, etc. All of these issues arise from a transparent Welsh nationalist POV.

On Talk:Water supply and sanitation in England and Wales he attempts to relitigate the exact same proposal that was declined just 2 months ago, eliciting the same answers but consuming more editor time. On this occasion, though, he appears to be socking (see below).

He edits disruptively. Just one example: when he created a POVFORK of a page and it was taken to deletion, he attempted to move the page to draft, removing the deletion tag and placing it on another page. See that deletion discussion. [115] , and the other page he attempted to delete, by later replacing the moved template with a proper one: [116]. Socking

In an RFC which was clearly going against his preference, a new user suddenly arrived, ProfBlue12, to support Titus Gold.[117]. This was a brand new user whose first edit was to join WikiProject Wales [118], which Titus Gold has also joined. They then somehow found and !voted on this RfC. They then went away to do nothing until suddenly, yesterday, they returned to !vote on the relitigated split proposal mentioned above. [119]. I tagged the comment as an SPA, and only after I tagged it did ProfBlue finally make a (single) mainspace edit [120]. Those edits were at 19:29 and 19:51. Titus Gold had been active earlier (14:08) and returned to editting at 20:18[121].

After the !vote on the RFC, I opened a sockpuppet investigation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Titus Gold/Archive. Owing to the very limited number of edits, technical evidence was merely Possible, maybe leaning Possilikely, and I, despite feeling this passed a clear Duck test at that stage, was content to let it go, as hopefully a single abberation that would not change the outcome of the RfC. This second !vote, however, is clearly the duck quacking again.

I should say, however, that I am not looking for short bans for this editor based on socking, and if admins still feel the evidence is not conclusive of socking, that is not really my concern. I do not want Titus Gold banned from Wikipedia, but I do think that the protection of the encyclopaedia demands that we address the core issue: Titus Gold is a civil POV pusher with a non neutral point of view on all articles relating to Wales.

I therefore propose an indefinite community topic ban be imposed on Titus Gold from articles relating to Wales, broadly construed. Should the community agree, he would be in a position to appeal such a ban in 6 months, but would be required to address the problematic behaviour.

A second ban might also be considered from conducting undiscussed page moves. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that bold moves are permitted by Wikipedia.

The feathers are referred to as the "Three feathers" usually in Welsh media and recent research by myself have found reliable sources showing that the feathers are technically those of the heir apparent, not the Prince of Wales, although in my edits I recognise the association of course.

The Water split proposal is not the same as the page move proposal previous to that. They are different proposals although albeit similar in some ways.

I'm not sure why you're referring to another user. Are you suggesting this is another account made by myself? If so, I can assure you that is not the case although I don't know how I could prove that.

With regards to claims of civil POV pushing or POV because I have made edits and contributions of differing viewpoints. It's unclear what is being suggested here. I do not at all dispute the fact that I have made a number of edits separating England and Wales. This is merely updating Wikipedia following the extensive change in the structure of the United Kingdom over the last 25 years with devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Note that I have not at all changed pages such as e.g England and Wales, Green Party of England and Wales etc. because there is clear evidence to support these pages staying as they are. Justice is not devolved in Wales and the Green party remains an England and Wales party.

I'm happy to learn or improve as an editor and acknowledge that I have made occasional mistakes. Titus Gold (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried to add this, but editors had replied so, adding as a new comment: Titus Gold also edit wars continually for his POV, without waiting for any consensus. Just one example, these are all reverts to re-assert something he wants in the article: [122], [123], [124], [125].Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You'd think someone with two blocks for edit warring on their account already would know about edit warring by now, seems like a WP:IDHT and the rules don't apply to me because I'm right attitude. Canterbury Tail talk 14:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban as per the nominators proposal. I come here very reluctantly because my strong preference is to welcome all sincerely felt views when appropriately supported by RS. In this case however, I have felt unable to continue contributing to many pages dealing with Wales or Welsh issues because of the persistent strong nationalistic editing by Titus Gold. Wales is my home and I am personally a strong supporter of matters Welsh, but I try my best to steer a POV free line in my editing. Many of the edits by this editor do poor service to the country and misrepresent the wide view. Whether this is intentional or unintentional I cannot guess, but the outcome is undoubtedly detrimental to Wikipedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support admin intervention. I too come here very reluctantly, as I am concerned about the non-neutral point of view of Titus Gold, and having to closely read all of their edits for PoV is in effect disruptive. I don't see that a ban is necessary, but some form of administrator intervention must be. Perhaps Titus Gold should take a voluntary break to consider whether they do have a nationalistic bias, and if so, what they should do about it in relation to editing on Wikipedia. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per proposer...Oh please yes. TG has wreaked havoc in Wales-related articles for over a year now. The proposer has outlined some issues. Moving articles and creating WP:POVFORKS and then cut and pasting text to support what he's done is one of his techniques. (Look at the list of his articles he's created and the deletions) To be honest, I'm not so bothered about the fact that he's pushing a POV (nationalist) in dubious ways WP:TENDENTIOUSly - it's that he does it in vast volumes at vast speed, with WP:BLUDGEON thrown in. It's just exhausting trying to keep up with his tricks. I was going to pull together some diffs, but I think I need a good night's sleep before attempting. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Footnote: I'm wondering if theres some sort of CIR issue involved. A minute ago he's just made this edit which is smack in the middle of the issue that prompted the opening of this thread. WP:IDHT, just doesn't get it or the middle finger. I don't know which. DeCausa (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  And he's also just gone 5RR so I've made a report to AN3 here. DeCausa (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban This is a quite clearcut WP:CPUSH issue. TitusGold seems to edit exclusively to pushing a certain POV around Wales- and UK-related topics. It is worth looking through their article creations to get a picture of this. This CPUSH is undertaken WP:TENDENTIOUSly, across a wide range of articles, and many articles are created simple to WP:CFORK existing ones.
  To my memory I first encountered TitusGold at Talk:Wales/Archive 18#Recent edits in May 2022, which followed a slew of bold and in many cases quite blatantly POV edits (eg. removing main and see also links that mentioned the United Kingdom). This conversation stretched across multiple subsequent sections in that archive, and resulted in all their edits being rolled back. Despite this, they continued with the same sorts of edits, and even edit warred them in. It's hard to go diff by diff, but the edit history shows how overwhelming and relentless this was. In July 2022 I brought up some of the repeatedly edit warred parts on Talk:Wales/Archive_18#Recent insertions, which had not gained consensus in the previous discussion. In August 2022 TitusGold raised exactly the same things again in a new section Talk:Wales/Archive_18#Police and Military. Having not obtained consensus there, they raised in again in December 2022 at Talk:Wales/Archive 19#Armed forces and veterans in Wales: should be mentioned. The same things were then raised, again, in April 2023 at Talk:Wales#Potential to add some sections similar to Scotland. Each time it was raised at if it was a new issue.
  Another article I interacted with them on was International relations of Wales. This was created by them on 13 April. This was moved back to draft on 15 April, with many issues being pointed out at Talk:International relations of Wales. After a period of inactivity and the issues with the page not being fixed, TitusGold unilaterially moved it back into mainspace on 8 May. In both of these cases the clear pattern can be seen of pushing a POV, and then when there is pushback and it is clear there is no consensus, simply waiting and then trying again.
  Their statement in this report of "I was under the impression that bold moves are permitted by Wikipedia" is entirely disingenuous: they are perfectly aware their moves and edits are controversial. It is, as with the repeated Talk:Wales posts, a pattern being deliberately presented as discrete and unrelated acts. It is also concerning how these pushes are often hidden behind innocuous edit summaries. Take the most recent move, the Prince of Wales's feathers article Sirfurboy opened this discussion with. The change of that article name was slid into the Wales article with the edit summary "slight re-word to sentence".
  If it was just the POV that would be one thing, but the clear lack of care for community consensus or any sort of collaboration has made all these edits utterly disruptive. After responding to this AN/I report, TitusGold has gone straight back to editing the page the prompted the opening of this AN/I. Edit warring with multiple users, ten open talkpage sections, and an open AN/I report are all apparently not enough to bring about even a moment of pause. A topic ban is needed. CMD (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify topic ban scope, I would support UK-related articles, broadly constructed. The problem extends beyond Wales-related articles, although they are the clearest example. CMD (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support admin intervention, it was only a matter of time before this was raised at ANI. A very large amount of time has been spent by several editors, including me, unpicking and repairing (and sometimes deleting/redirecting) TG's edits. TG has largely been civil since I've come across them last year and promises to take advice on board, but the problematic behaviour usually continues i.e. constant moving and renaming of pages, often whilst they are under discussion, as well as creation of content forks, POV "Controversy about..." and "Campaign for... " articles and large scale duplication/copying of info across Wales topics. Depending on the outcome of the sockpuppetry allegations, maybe some sort of break from editing Wales topics would be beneficial for reflection. Sionk (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly Support topic ban, as per nominator. As a follower of Welsh-related pages, I have watched TG’s activities with some dismay for some time, and have previously called for some community sanction. They edit with a strong POV and are not interested in Neutrality. They are incapable of/unwilling to understand/take on board other views. They are incapable of collaborative editing, although they pay lip service to it. Sock puppetry would not surprise me at all. In short, their passion to promote a Welsh nationalist POV far, far outweighs their wish to build a neutral encyclopaedia. KJP1 (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Note I've just blocked Titus Gold for one week purely for the current active edit warring they're performing on the Prince of Wales article. This is purely for that specific edit warring, and does not prevent further sanctions from the outcome of this thread, though they will be no longer able to participate in it directly (not that they were showing any inclination to do so really anyway.) Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and suggest that it be extended to cover pages broadly related to devolution and nationalist movements in other UK nations as well as Wales. I've observed similar civil POV pushing behaviour on pages such as Potential breakup of the United Kingdom, Proposed second Scottish independence referendum, United Ireland to mention but a few. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on Wales broadly construed. Unlike many of the editors commenting above, I have no special knowledge or interest in the Wales topic area, but the ongoing disruption must stop. Titus Gold should be warned that any tendentious editing related to Scotland or Ireland will lead quite quickly to additional sanctions. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• I don't have an opinion on whether a topic ban is justified, but I wasn't impressed with their editing in Welsh fiscal balance. I do get the feeling that this editor has a pro-Wales POV and sometimes it interferes with editing according to policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Reluctant Support topic ban on Wales broadly construed, per KJP1 and others - which is a pity as I think this is the only area he is interested in editing. He seems to be getting worse too. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban extended to cover pages broadly related to devolution and nationalist movements in other UK nations as well as Wales as suggested by Rosbif73.SovalValtos (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Someone has today left some rather nasty porn on my Wikidata talk page. The user, created today, is [126]. I have reported on the admin noticeboard there. However, this has never happened before, and the user's only edit is on my page. I rarely upload there, so I doubt this is random. The timing is such that I would like to know whether a sock puppet investigation is possible across Wikis. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Sirfurboy - Sorry about that and hope it wasn’t too unpleasant. The timing makes it unlikely to be coincidental and with luck some cross-Wiki investigation will be possible. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: I wouldn't jump to conclusions. If there is a connection with this thread (and there may not be a connection) I know from previous experience that LTAs target participants here for reasons best known to themselves. DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes.. True. OK so probably no need for an investigation. Sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely no need for an apology. And personally I doubt it is coincidental. But, unpleasant though it was, it is entirely secondary to the key issue that you have raised. And for which there is complete consensus that action is needed. KJP1 (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: Funnily enough - I had the exact same thing with a brand new user on my Wikinews talk page a couple weeks ago despite not editing there for months. I also haven't been involved in this discussion, so I don't think it's about this. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Admins at wikidata also suggested it happened before too. Odd timing, but happy to accept there is no connection with this case. No need to investigate that further nor take it into account. This case stands on its own. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for Uninvolved Admin I don't want this to get archived off and forgotten about. Do any uninvolved admins want to take a look at this and see about actioning if needed and closing this? I think it's had time enough and Titus Gold had plenty of opportunity to respond prior to their continuing editing warring and temp block. They were also given the opportunity to respond on their talk page, but instead blanked everything so clearly have no intention or interest in doing so. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Titus Gold's Talkpage - Since they are unable to participate directly, they made a post to their talkpage that I'm copying (with their permission and request) directly below.

@Canterbury Tail I don't think this ANI has properly considered the evidence at all. I haven't had enough of an opportunity to respond and in the meantime other editors have responded without me being given a chance to answer any concerns. I think the ANI should be re-started with me being able to respond.

In hindsight I can see that I may have drifted into edit warring on the Prince of Wales article. Edits I made were generally different and cited in an attempt to meet the comments/suggestions made by the reverting user. I would point to a paragraph I wrote about Owain Gwynedd which was removed without the source having even been read. At the time, it seemed as though some editors were pushing a POV and and reverting my edits without explanation. In hindsight, I could have gone about this in a better and more patient manner and so I apologise for that.

With regards to Sirfurboy's incident, I can assure you that was nothing to do with me.

Generally, some of the accusations of civil pov pushing are unfair and lack clear and definitive evidence. I have fully acknowledged that I have made some attempts to separate England and Wales joined pages because they were out of date and had not caught up with 2023 levels of devolution etc. but have left other pages as they are e.g England and Wales, because justice is not devolved. By now, virtually all the major updates that were needed on Wales related articles have been done. (The final split proposal being the England & Wales water related articles. I will of course respect the outcome of the split proposal.)

I would urge editors to reconsider a topic ban as that would be massively disproportional. I'm happy to make further changes to my editing style and look forward to working with other users in future.

Thanks for your time Titus Gold (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that I've also created many good quality articles and made significant high quality additions to articles and I think that this should be taken into consideration as well. Thank you @Canterbury Tail Titus Gold (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this begins to deal with all the issues raised here. I do accept that you had nothing to do with the wikidata talk page incident I mentioned above. I had not considered that trolls were probably watching this page and that is why they would have targetted me, so again, happy for that incident to be completely ignored and forgotten. The civil POV pushing concerns have not come from nowhere. These have been expressed by many editors in many contexts over a very long period. Is a topic ban disproportionate? It has been mooted before (in the evidence above and no doubt elsewhere) and any kind of ban is there for the protection of the encyclopaedia, and is not punitive. You edit pages in a rush and move on, leaving editors in your wake to clean up. As I said in my first post, an indefinite topic ban need not be forever. It can be appealed in 6 months, but the appeal will require you, the editor, to address the reasons for it. If you were to edit in other areas of the encyclopaedia and demonstrate you can do so in a collegial manner and with a neutral point of view, and can see why the torrent of bold page moves, the copy and pasting of content from page to page, the continual re-assertion of challenged content etc., have caused these issues, and that you have changed as a result, then I will be among the first to support lifting of the topic ban at that point. I promise you that much. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"I have fully acknowledged that I have made some attempts to separate England and Wales joined pages because they were out of date and had not caught up with 2023 levels of devolution etc" is breathtakingly specious. It's so obviously wrong from at a slight glance at the article creation list that it's hard not to see it as deliberate dishonesty. List of cities in Wales is a redundant fork that has absolutely nothing to do with 2023 levels of devolution, and is built on the premise that readers cannot use table sorting buttons. Armed forces in Wales has nothing to do with 2023 levels of devolution, and includes the usual coatrack at the end. The List of Nuttall mountains in Wales represents the devolution needs of large mountains, and the Flora of Wales were glad to have received political autonomy from other flora. There's a series of Wales-related nobility articles I can't look at as they're deleted, but presumably they refer to nobility established by the Government of Wales Act? The list goes on. "In hindsight I can see that I may have drifted into edit warring" is similarly remarkable given the history, and a prime example of how patterns are excused as discrete and unrelated acts.

In fact, this is so non-discrete that this whole message is has been seen before. See here in July 2022. Compare then, "I don't fancy an unnecessary "ban" and I'm here to co-operate and listen if you want to make any suggestions. I don't think there are any more pages that need creating anyway and my "customary energy" has been used up!", and now "By now, virtually all the major updates that were needed on Wales related articles have been done...I would urge editors to reconsider a topic ban as that would be massively disproportional. I'm happy to make further changes to my editing style and look forward to working with other users in future.". This is a long-term and highly repetitive pattern that many many previous discussions have not changed, and that is why a preventative topic-ban is needed. CMD (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment I think Sirfurboy has given an entirely reasonable response to Titus Gold's rather vague reaction to the serious criticisms about their editing. I would like to know what Titus Gold means by "happy to make further changes to my editing style'. Right now, having them blocked from editing has come as a huge if temporary relief from their edits which is in itself significant. I'm keeping a watching brief on this, but am not optimistic of any change. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm with Sirfurboy and CMD on this. And I entirely understand Tony Holkham's expression of "huge if temporary relief from their edits". It does rather feel that the year-long POV-tornado has just passed through ... at the moment anyway. Hopefully, the unanimity of editors' view of TG will result in some speedy admin action to conclude this, as requested by Canterbury Tail above. DeCausa (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Another response from Titus Gold. Reposted from their talk page.

Thanks. Here is a response to later comments;

With regards to the quote, some of the responses at the time seemed to be about me making more radical changes to the Wales article and my own inadequacies in following processes which were unfamiliar to me at the time. Since then I did come across more articles that needed an update. By now, I'm quite confident that the major changes that were required have been done. I'm not aware of any major further changes needed.

I know I have previously said this but I think I should be clear that yes I have made an attempt to separate England and Wales as this is an out of date grouping under most circumstances based on the Laws in Wales Act 1536. However, when there is reasonable justification for this grouping e.g in justice, I have not altered e.g England and Wales and in others like Green Party of England and Wales, they have been appropriately left as they are. I have also made contrasting improvements to contrasting articles, e.g both Unionism in Wales and also added arguments against and for e.g Welsh independence.

Of course I agree that I am focused on Wales related articles, and there is nothing wrong with that and some of the evidence presented about a POV is a little unfair. In hindsight I agree that I have been impatient more than anything else and made bold moves without waiting for response. I have recently began using the RM which I was previously unaware of. When it comes to RMs I have accepted the outcome when a clear consensus is made. In fact I am often proactive in making the change against my own preference. I have also attempted to address templates and points of improvements brought about by other users.

My proposals for self-improvement

With reflection, I need to be much more patient and make use of discussion processes more.

I have only more recently become aware of Requested Moves. I'm prepared to use this more frequently and avoid bold moves if there is an indication of controversy. I accept that some previous bold moves could have used the RM process and I have previously been impatient.

I'll avoid edit warring by being more patient with reverts to my edits. I'll properly review the reverts and go to comment section as I maybe rushed past these a little recently (which I have apologised for). I apologise for my frustrations at what seemed like unexplained removals recently.

The Water in Wales and England is genuinely the last major split that I wanted to propose, after trawling through many Wales related articles. I will of course accept the result of the discussion either way.

May I suggest a fairer discipline measure such as extending the general block to two weeks, rather than a 6 month topic ban which seems disproportionate. I will consider a refreshed approach to my editing following such a period.

Generally speaking, my plans were on improvement to Welsh TV and cinema and addressing any article requests on WikiProject Wales but became sidetracked by a merging of an article I had created.

Thanks for your patience

@Sirfurboy @Canterbury Tail Titus Gold (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

So TG says "I have only more recently become aware of Requested Moves". Yet he's participated in requested moves before now - see this in 2020 (when his account was called TG11TG15). What's interesting about his participation in that RM was that there was the very characteristic TG manoeuvre of moving the article while the Requested Move was ongoing and when challenged that that to do so was a breach of the RM process innocently explains it away with Yes I know. This is merely a temporary change. As it stands, it seems the title "Senedd" is the most strongly supported. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

(Additional comment crossposted) Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail @DeCausa Additional comment.

I didn't recall that comment on an RM three years ago (I didn't actually start any RMs at that time) and must've been inexperienced with the rules. I wasn't using Wikipedia much at all back then and didn't really start as a regular user until early 2022 I think. I only realised they were an option when Sirfurboy (I think) mentioned them recently.

I've only recently began using the RM system but I will commit to using them more, particularly in potentially controversial moves. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You may not have recalled that RM you were involved in in 2020, but what about the one you started in November 2022 regarding renaming the Snowdon article?[127]. Surely you remember that, yet that was before my comment to you in March about using RMs. In any case you continued to make bold page moves after that comment on your talk page, and by my count, 10 of your bold page moves were reverted from late March until the one that kicked off this thread. And to be clear, bold page moves are just one of the many issues, which come down to an issue with a lack of neutral point of view. Another example (of so many) is Welsh crown jewels, which is itself a POVfork, you began with the less than neutral The Welsh crown jewels refer to the royal relics of the Kingdom of Gwynedd that were stolen by King Edward I of England following the murder of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd[128]. Ghmyrtle twice attempted to make the language more neutral in that article, [129] and [130], but some of it still found its way back in there. POV is the issue. The RM issue is a symptom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Support topic ban This discussion already resembles the fog that I have come to associate with Titus Gold’s editing, so I hope an admin will do something about this ANI soon. Titus Gold's latest responses, as previous ones, are entirely consistent with their wordy and adversarial editing style we see on articles and talk pages (Prince of Wales being a prime recent example). This style of editing, with its often lack of nPoV, is in my view disruptive, so I am coming off the fence and advocating a full topic ban of all Wales-related articles. Their "proposals for self-improvement" are anything but, and even include an attempt to negotiate the length of the block. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

(Additional comment crossposted from Talk:Titus Gold)

@Canterbury Tail @Tony Holkham

I am willing to change my approach and use RMs and discussions more. I don't know what else I can say to show this.

What would you like me to do?

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(response from Tony Holkham)

I'm afraid it's not up to me, as I didn't open the ANI, which has to be dealt with by an admin. All I can say for now is that I'm pleased you are aware of the difficulties other editors perceive they are having with you. I hope they can be resolved to allow you to continue to contribute.

Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Support topic ban As others have said, this is not confined to RMs and forks. For example, Titus Gold injected Wales into our Boudica article in at best a breach of WP:CIR and WP:NPOV, using WP:FRINGE sources and misrepresenting WP:RS sources.[131]

Long version: the place of the last battle is unknown and as the ancient historians only describe the Romans marching from Anglesey to fight the revolt and an advance party entering London, there are many theories. Titus Gold made our article's first one that the Romans defeated her in north-east Wales, taken from St. Paul in Britain and other nineteenth-century WP:FRINGE works by 'Morien' Morgan. Titus Gold cited modern scholar Marta Vandrei as supporting this theory, but her Queen Boudica and Historical Culture in Britain not only doesn't support Morien's theory and isn't even about whether the representations she studies are true, but also describes Morien's work at length and with some amusement as a "sensationalist view of Welsh history", "picturesque" and "conjecture", and discusses how "Boudica was a singularly useful figure for Morien".

It takes time to unpick such edits and makes me fearful about whatever other articles they've edited. NebY (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ll be blunt. This is more TG bollocks. Walls of text / promises to change their approach / assurances of collaborative editing in future / claims that all the work they wanted to do has now been done. Those of us who follow the relevant Welsh pages have read every word of this before… and it was as untruthful and dishonest then as it is now. I really hope that this can be promptly resolved by an uninvolved admin. If it can’t, we have a bigger problem than TG. KJP1 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I count 13 editors (could be off by one) making well-argued cases for editing restrictions. With one, TG themself, arguing against. Could the community consensus be any clearer? KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Support topic ban for Wales topics, preferably expanded to UK topics. While I admire TG's passion, TG has repeatedly failed to edit collaboratively, and, whether intentionally or not, often edited with an apparent Welsh nationalist (or anti-English/British) POV. Llwyld (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Elelch

Elelch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA engaged in blatant WP:BATTLE behavior, obviously WP:NOTHERE. They edit only a limited number of Peru-related articles.

Their first editing conflict occurred on the Shining Path article where they attempted to place a WP:LABEL on the guerrilla group to describe them as a "terrorist organization" (despite the controversial background of the group, this is inappropriate amongst many groups on Wikipedia that may be described as "terrorist organizations"). The user then attempted to use WP:IPSOCKs to place the information back, though they were reverted by a different user. The user was then warned that they would be blocked for their edit war and sock behavior.

The user again engaged in edit warring behavior on the controversial 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article. I attempted to ask about their edits, which were messy (included an old article title and strangely had two background sections). They in turn accused me of trying to "skew" the article's information. I personally review their concerns and made a list of edits for them in an attempt to calm the situation. They again accused me of "skewing" information. I attempted one last time to defuse the situation and reminded them of WP:CIVIL. They continued to place the messy edit into the article and accused me of misrepresenting the sources (which I can easily disprove).

In summary, this user does not appear to be here to construct an encyclopedia and is instead participating in WP:BATTLE behavior.--WMrapids (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the civility issues, but a block for edit warring is definitely warranted. They used sockpuppet accounts and continued edit warring even after being warned.

Also, User:WNrapids really should be renamed to avoid confusion. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 13:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Carpimaps: Yeah, I’ve reached out about the username and heard nothing. Thanks for bringing that to attention again. WMrapids (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

A suspicious edit that may have been performed as a WP:IPSOCK. WMrapids (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem with WMrapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is that he continues to delete duly referenced paragraphs, despite having been warned to abandon this behavior. For example, he insists on placing the in the intro that "...and the majority of Peruvians showed support for its creation in the weeks following Castillo's actions" (in reference to the intention to convene a constituent assembly) despite the fact that the majority of Peruvians do not support a new constitution or the call for a constituent assembly in 2023 (as many references support). Also, he insists on deleting the final paragraph of the introduction that, duly referenced, informs about the current judicial status of Pedro Castillo and is putting in its place a paragraph referring to a ruling by the Constitutional Court on the power of the Peruvian Congress to appoint officials that have nothing to do with Article which is about the coup attempt. I have reverted those edits because they have been arbitrarily placed without prior consensus being reached in the discussion section.--Elelch (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted dialogue and edits to help with these issues. Instead, you continue WP:BATTLE and WP:NOTHERE and using socks in edit wars. WMrapids (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I know it takes two to edit war, but user has continued edit warring behavior [1][2][3] while placing manipulative comments on the talk page and edit summaries, making false statements about the content of sources.--WMrapids (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The mentioned IP seems to have only a few edits, the behavior seems to have stopped after being warned, and there's already an open sockpuppet investigation request to address any remaining concerns regarding socks. I'd also watch out for a WP:BOOMERANG regarding recent edit warring in the WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources page, which started indirectly due to the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt move. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Disruptive editing by Chile-based dynamic IPs

This is a Chile-based dynamic IP who for many months now has been changing details in many film articles against consensus, despite advice and numerous warnings. They change billing block and cast list entries; change the title/headline of citations/references; change wikilink targets; over-link (etc). By the time action can be taken against them, pages are semi-protected, or a proxy bot blocks them, they've already moved on to another article or another IP address, then they return to repeat the same reverted edits over and over and over again, denying the charges against them, even when presented with diffs as proof.

You'll see that the majority of their contributions have been reverted by other editors, and yet they persist with making the same or similar changes. Latest response to another editor's level 4 vandalism warning: "Yeah yeah, whatever you say."

I do wonder if this user is on the spectrum, and I appreciate that allowances are made for such users.

Update #2: Current IP is now 201.188.135.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Back after previous IP's 3 day p2p/proxy block.

• Example Edit difference (Making changes to the film's billing block; ignoring and removing hidden HTML note. This had already been reverted as disruptive editing)

• Example Edit difference (Deliberately, repeatedly and persistently ignoring hidden HTML note about ENGVAR spelling. This had already been reverted as disruptive editing)

• Example Edit difference (One of several reverted edits. Yet again, way down the source code, citation/reference titles/headlines have been changed, not indicated in edit summary).

Previous incarnation 201.188.134.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference ("Fixed and updated", but actually changes citation/reference titles/headlines as well. You need to scroll a long way down the source page).

• Example Edit difference ("Fixed; Army of the Dead: Lost Vegas is a TV show and starts streaming this year", but actually changes citation/reference titles/headlines as well. You need to scroll a long way down the source page).

Previous incarnation: 201.188.149.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "Stop redoing the same edits over and over when they are reverted for a reason").

• Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "Also unreliable, now considered intentional disruptive editing as previously reverted changes were done yet again").

Previous incarnation: 201.188.143.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference. Incomplete and deceptive edit summary "Fixed". Actually changes citation/reference titles/headlines.

Previous incarnation: 190.21.163.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous incarnation: 190.21.168.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "rv disruptive editing". Repeated changes to citation titles, followed by increase in page protection).

Many incarnations before this, especially editing four Fantastic Beasts film-related articles.

Some (but certainly not all) earlier incarnations are here: Edit summary search.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and consideration. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a block should be placed. Whether on the spectrum or not (personally it doesn't seem like they are), the user is being repeatedly disruptive, ignoring consensus, and being dismissive, with comments such as Dude stop with your drama ([132]) in response to your ANI notice. —El Millo (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

All the edits are film-related, and it's like playing whack-a-mole with so much IP hopping. Would a topic ban be appropriate, and would it span across future IPs, making it far simpler to pursue as block evasion? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the course of action is with disruptive dinamic IPs. Range block? Temporary individual blocks for these specific IPs? So far, it seems those IPs have only been used by the same editor. —El Millo (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Lots of reversion by multiple editors, gentle advice, increasingly stern notices, range block, increased page protection, waiting for proxy bot to block have been used thus far, but the user still persists. Your WP:AIV went stale before it was even looked at. That's why, not knowing myself, I brought the issue here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Update #2: Current IP is now 201.188.135.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The relevant range here appears to be 201.188.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Would be worthwhile to block as there is little collateral wizzito | say hello! 20:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Incivility from Gwillhickers

I would appreciate some guidance in dealing with some chronic incivility from Gwillhickers. I have found it difficult to interact with him without him personally attacking me and accusing me of acting in bad faith.

• In March, he engaged me in a long discussion about how to present the Constitution of the United States. After I argued that we should avoid the phrase the people without qualification, he said that I was bent on the effort of casting aspersions on the U.S. (I am not.) After I said that the United States was not the first democracy in America, he repeated that I was bent on slighting American history. I asked him to assume good faith and stop making personal attacks.
• On 22 March, in Headbomb's AN/I thread, Gwillhickers referenced what he called my obvious SJW behavior. I asked him to stop calling me names. His response doubled down on his social justice warrior comment, arguing that it did not count as a personal attack.
• In the same conversation, he described my apparent attempt to obscure the discussion and ward off any newcomers to the discussion. and my hope that we will forever be going over these things (Neither of these characterizations are accurate.) I reminded him to assume good faith, but he responded that good faith went out the window sometime ago.
• On 27 March, in an unrelated discussion at Talk:James Madison, he tried to canvass more editors into the AN/I discussion about me, describing me as an editor who routinely tag bombs articles, and then follows up with reverts, multiple proposals over menial items in the middle of unresolved discussions, with pages of endless talk. After I warned him to stop canvassing, he deleted the warning without responding.
• On 6 April, I argued that Allreet's proposed text was not neutral because it favored a nationalist point of view, which is inherently subjective. Gwillhickers responded that I was making an assumption, that a "nationalist" point of view is somehow erroneous or less than accurate. This strikes me as tendentious, suggesting that Wikipedia should take sides on controversial issues and prioritize the "accurate" point of view.
• On 25 April, Gwillhickers deleted one of Maxxhiato's comments. When I showed him the diff and referred him to WP:TPO, he denied it and accused me of acting in bad faith. When I suggested that he read H:DIFF for help reading diffs, he accused me of harassment. I eventually convinced him that he had deleted the comment.
• On 17 May, I suggested that we should not limit the scope of Constitution of the United States § Influences to Gwillhickers's European examples, citing a source about Indigenous democracies that served as an inspiration for U.S. government. He accused me of making content decisions on the basis of race. (I never make content decisions informed by racial discrimination.) I reminded him that Wikipedia considers an accusation of racial discrimination to be a personal attack. He replied that his characterization of me was an academic criticism rather than a personal attack. I tried to clarify my position, citing another source about Indigenous influence on the U.S. founding. He repeated his accusation that was making decisions based on race.

As you can see, I have repeatedly confronted Gwillhickers about his inappropriate conduct. I have been trying to follow the WP:RUCD policy, but it has been exhausting and ineffective, and our interactions continue to be unpleasant. I would appreciate any help, whether it is something more that I can do, a second voice that Gwillhickers might listen to, or a good reason for me to simply suck it up.  — Freoh 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see repeated longstanding disruptive behaviour, but I looking at the actual diffs and not the cherry picked quotes, I don't see that behaviour from Gwillhickers. Being criticized is not the same thing as being subject to uncivility. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• "His response doubled down on his social justice warrior comment, arguing that it did not count as a personal attack." It certainly does not sound as a compliment. He/she is trying to discredit all of your suggestions and to portray you as an extremist of some kind.Dimadick (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Why in the world have you formatted the diff links in this way? It makes them nearly impossible to follow. jp×g 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't yet looked is to the rights and wrongs of this post, but I see nothing wrong with the way diffs are presented, which looks clearer than in most reports. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, totally trivial issue, but I disagree, as now the reflist section is below the extended "Comments from Gwillhickers" section and one has to scroll down to find the actual link. Freoh seems to be averse to including an https link[133] but also to be avoiding excessive piped links to e.g. to the special:diff for the same diff... Freoh has been taken to task for their linking habits so perhaps they are just trying to find the best solution. There are basically six possibilities:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1144040967
  2. [134]
  3. diff
  4. Special:Diff/1144040967
  5. diff

  Personally I think #2 is the most appropriate for what is being done here, but I don't want to try to dictate to anyone what formatting styles they use. Freoh is being knocked around enough in all this (rightfully so or not) and I feel they are probably acting completely in good faith in attempting to meet the community's concerns. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll simply state that anyone calling another editor "SJW" or "social justice warrior" is absolutely violating WP:NPA. The term is only used to belittle others and dismiss them as insincere or ignorant.

I won't delve into the rest of this report, but that alone is not cool. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Gwillhickers

• When Freoh is taken to task over various issues he typically resorts to accusing others of "personal attacks", "canvasing", nationalistic bias", "systemic bias", lacking good faith, etc, To demonstrate this, examples include accusations made to ErnestKrause on his talk page See: User talk:ErnestKrause#No personal attacks'.  Here Freoh also accused numerous editors of bias, including ErnestKrause, Cmguy777, BusterD, Hawkeye7, Indy beetle, Ceranthor, Epicgenius, SNUGGUMS, Randy Kryn, DIYeditor and myself. See: User talk:ErnestKrause#Canvassing This is not at all good faith.

• As one can hopefully see, the above claims made now by Freoh are tainted with a lot of opinion. While the discussions in question are not of a friendly nature they do not involve outright incivility or "personal attacks", or anything that amounts to disruptive behavior, for which I have been repeatedly accused. The latest issue began on the U.S. Constitution Talk page where Freoh said

If we are including influences that are not universally accepted, then we should include non-white influences as well.

To which I replied — "Seeking other such political philosophers simply on the basis that they may be "non white" is not the way to approach matters".

• For this Freoh came to my Talk page and accused me by saying "I do not appreciate your accusations of racial discrimination", and for "systemic bias" on the Constitution Talk page. No one ever said that we must only include European, or white, influences only, and in several instances I invited Freoh to provide content on any "non-white" influences if such content was covered in reliable sources.

• Freoh has engaged in similar matters on the Constitution Talk page, once accusing Allreet of presenting a "nationalist point of view", in spite of the fact that numerous reliable sources were cited, historians Freoh also accused of having a "nationalist perspective".. Freoh has had every opportunity to include other perspectives in the article if they are cited in reliable sources, and has never even attempted it. Instead he engages in endless talk for which he has been taken to task for here at ANI, by numerous editors in the recent past.   In an RfC which began on Feb. 2, lasting approximately six weeks, he made numerous and ever-changing proposals and again filled the discussion with endless talk involving spurious POV's for which he received no consensus by the time S Marshall closed that RfC. Now it seems he is about to make the same attempt here with lengthy talk, as his claims above are highly exaggerated or simply distort what has actually happened.

• If there is anything that can be considered truly uncivil or a personal attack, I apologize for that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Freoh mentions an ANI discussion in which he feels he was mistreated. That discussion was started because of his penchant to misrepresent interactions and to "warn" editors for things that they have not done. It then expanded in scope to several different conduct issues, including the ones that Gwillhickers has described in their disputes with Freoh. I have not seen any evidence that Freoh has learned from that discussion, and if anything it appears that the behavior for which Freoh received a logged warning has increased. The worst offense committed by Gwillhickers here is that they have been far too patient with an editor that has wasted an inordinate amount of other contributors' time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I was the uninvolved closer of the well-attended "Consistant gaslighting behaviour by Freoh" ANI commenced by User:Headbomb mentioned in the OP's opening comment. As I mentioned in part one of my closing statement there, User:Freoh did not then deny being a clean start account. WP:Clean starts usually are provided either for victims of egregious harassment or truly repentant contributors, behavioral offenders who have been blocked or banned for cause, and promised a trusted somebody their poor behavior would change. I'll quote the fourth sentences from both the opening paragraphs of that policy page: "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." "The behavior of the new account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny."
  Normally I'd wish to see a truly odious ANI reporter trouted. In this case, the BOOMERANG may be more appropriate. For my part, I'll concede it's possible I misread that ANI discussion and closed it incorrectly (as merely strongly warning a frequent WP:Civil POV pusher). Based on behavior raised in that ANI and the OP's behavior since the resulting warning, it seems likely the clean start agreement (if any) has been violated many times. In my opinion, this contributor (whatever their current username) has abundantly demonstrated themselves a net negative to the project and should be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for regularly violating the civility policy and the terms of their clean start. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I did not violate the WP:CLEANSTART policy. I created this account because my previous account exposed some personally identifiable information. WP:SOCKLEGIT indicates that this is a legitimate reason to create a second account. If it would please you, I can privately share my previous account with a checkuser, who can confirm that I did not return to previous discussions. It seems strange to me to accuse someone of sockpuppetry without filing a sockpuppet investigation or even identifying the suspected account in violation. Could you explain (with a diff and a WP:CIVIL quotation) how I violated civility policy?  — Freoh 00:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Having a legitimate reason for creating a second account (no matter that reason) doesn't excuse the contributor from violating the parts of CLEANSTART I quoted directly. I contend the behavior of this new account has told me all I need to know to make an informed decision about the contributor. As to diffs (even ignoring everything linked in the ANI thread) let's just observe two threads on your current talk, shall we? First, we have a thread in which admin Doug Weller tells you he should have blocked you for making personal attacks on Headbomb in the ANI thread. Then we have a thread in which I try to explain that accusing an editor of not getting the point (by misleading piped link in your edit summary) is a personal attack. I'm finished answering questions from this editor. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with BusterD, [add: about clean start issues -- not a sock, however, imo] but I believe the major issue was that Freoh was recently taken to task in an ANI of March by numerous editors for Gaslighting, engaging in never ending argumentative talk while ignoring well reasoned points in a discussion. Shortly thereafter he went to ErnestKrause's Talk page and accused numerous editors of bias. The other day he has accused me of "systemic bias". My last comment to Freoh was on the US Constitution Talk page where for the third time I invited Freoh to make any contributions supported by reliable sources. He ignored that and instead came here and filed this ANI, and now he is accusing multiple editors here for spreading "falsehoods", and intends to come back in 48 hours and address all the statements with the apparent attempt of further compounding everything in the discussions, individually. Along with the ANI of last March, and his behavior on ErnestKrause's Talk page, one only has to look Freoh's Talk page to realize that this pattern of behavior is wide in its range and is persistent. Freoh at virtually any one time is always engaged with editors over the sort of behavior outlined here, and we're supposed to assume in "good faith" that all these editors are somehow wrong .-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Proposal - User:Freoh is banned from Wikipedia for violating WP:Civility and WP:Clean start

• Support as proposer BusterD (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Freoh is a persistent timewaster whos sole purpose appears to be to tendentiously argue on talkpages, wasting the valuable time of other Wikipedia contributors. They are therefore a net negative to the encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support - The misuse of a clean start is sufficient in itself to ban this editor. By allowing the possibility of a clean start, the community extends AGF to the maximum, trusting that the editor will no longer cause the previous disruption, and the encyclopedia will retain a valued contributor in return. Violating a clean start is therefore a very serious offense against the entire en.wiki community, worse than mere vandalism or disruption: it is a gut punch that rewards a magnanimous gesture with total disdain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support a cban for civility and clean start violations, but also more generally for disruptive editing. I think the close of the previous ANI discussion was reasonable at the time, as it gave Freoh an opportunity to reconsider his approach and become a more constructive editor. Unfortunately, Freoh did not take this opportunity. He has engaged in the same behavior that resulted in a formal warning, in some cases continuing the same disputes for which he was warned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:F58A:A000:66B7:FFE6 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support; I remember watching the previous ANI discussion unfold. This pattern has to stop. I'm unsure on the clean start question; we don't know the circumstances of the previous identity. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support regardless of the clean start, Freoh is simply too combative. From their own presentation of diffs, it seems clear that they frequently twist or distort comments from other editors and then follow-up with condescending warnings. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• SUPPORT. I still maintain that this is the same sockpuppet account that I mentioned the last time this user appeared at ANI. Tamzin, perhaps you remember this discussion from last time? He should have been flushed the first time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do continue to think that it's quite a lot of similarities to Mrbeastmodeallday/Awolf58, but of course if I could prove that to a satisfactory degree I would have just blocked. Either way, I'll push back on the argument below about "unproven allegations of sockpuppetry": regardless of whether Freoh has ever been blocked before, "misusing a clean start" is per se sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. And WP:CLEANSTART expects editors to refrain from disruptive editing or else be considered sockpuppets. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I endorse Tamzin's views. I'm making a case that Freoh has violated the spirit and the wording of WP:Clean start policy by failing to follow community norms and by demonstrating through their frequent poor behavior in this new account that even a fresh start has not enabled Freoh to learn to act in a way acceptable to the community. I hate to lose an active contributor to Wikipedia over behavioral issues, but Freoh continues to have their wrongdoings pointed out and then they keep acting in this civil POV pushing way, despite the warning at ANI just weeks ago. BusterD (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: It surprises me to see so many people casting aspersions about me in a post about incivility. I do not have time to respond to all of the falsehoods right now, but will try to do so within the next 48 h.  — Freoh 01:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC); fixed 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Freoh has once again chosen to use a misleading piped link ([[WP:CA|casting aspersions]]) in the body of his comment, demonstrating either 1) a lack of competence, or 2) a lack of willingness to verify the consequences of their edit. For the record, the link WP:Casting aspersions recommends using an appropriate forum (like this ANI thread commenced by Freoh) in which to discuss bad user behavior, and the OP's own links to previous discussions provide mountains of evidence himself Freoh refuses to acknowledge, being chock filled with frequent demonstrations of bad faith and civil pov pushing. BusterD (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Demonstrating either 1) a lack of competence, or 2) a lack of willingness to verify the consequences of their edit" The misuse of a link is no justification to descend to the level that you believe he is on. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 11:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yet Freoh is quite an artful link piper, and is frequently decried because of their misuse of misleading piped links, which seems confusing to some and deliberate to others. I came to this subject as the uninvolved closer of the ANI thread linked by Freoh in the OP; I spent an extensive time reading over the evidence presented, then several days just looking through Freoh's contribution history. I didn't do this reading for my personal pleasure, but to better understand the context of that previous gaslighting thread. I had no dog in that hunt. I came to it with no expectation, as neutral as I could. Here we are ten weeks after my closure and warning to Freoh; Freoh is now on ANI gaslighting us in this thread about Gwillhickers's not taking his gaslighting very well. I'm disappointed. That's my opinion, but it's based on my reading of Freoh's behaviors since the warning, which I have followed closely. In his reckless use of a bad piped link, Freoh makes my case for me. BusterD (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It appears to me that if he fires a volley of these links, then someone steps up to feed him the ammunition. Stating that there is a possible "lack of competence" is a bold way of demonstrating that his reasoning is not unfounded. Others have made similar remarks. He says there is uncivility and disparaging remarks, and so we treat such concern by being uncivil? Maybe he is saying such things because people are making negative comments about him. This is not to preach about his innocence, but I am awestruck as to how some can cast such heavy stones while bearing such egregious sins. Please, retract the comment. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is not the display of gross incivility that you seem to think it is to question the competence of an editor who continually finds their behavior scrutinized at these noticeboards. Indeed, questions of competence are regularly raised in the course of these discussions. Such questions are undoubtedly unpleasant for the editor being scrutinized, but that does not make them uncivil. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that BusterD has spent a considerable amount of time familiarizing himself with this situation, whereas you have not. I would encourage you to tone down your stern rebukes. Your intentions here are clearly good, but you've let your words run ahead of your knowledge. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Allow me to list the number of reasons where such a comment is appropriate: Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  A quick overview will show that the list is empty. This is because by the policy of civility: "it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other."

  Furthermore, "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond the same way."

  This doesn't say "One is allowed to question the competence of the editor has a history of being scrutinized." If you @Lepricavark can show me a policy that suggests otherwise, then I will bite my tongue I guess.

  Either way, I don't want to be the person who points out the specks in everyone's eyes or fight other's battles, but I wouldn't have brought it up if not for the that there is merit to Freoh's claims that people are making negative comments about him. This happened on a proposal for banning him for violating WP:CIVIL that came from the person who started the proposal no less. His claims are not baseless. Your seeming agreement that such a comment is acceptable is demonstrative and serves to only prove Freoh's claim that people are indeed casting aspersions.

  Typically, in such a case, this would not be demonstrative of innocence. That is, other people being guilty of the same crime obviously does not make Freoh innocent. However, in this case, it sort of does, since, if people are calling into question his use of the terms and invocation of good faith/civility policies, and then are demonstratively making comments that violate such policies, then it can be shown that his assumptions are not unwarranted, disruptive, or assume a lack of good faith. In other words, he is saying that people are being discourteous, and others are willing to prove it for him.

  There's still a lot that goes into this. For instance, on the ErnestKrause "No Personal Attacks" section, Freoh accused them of making a personal attack. The comment in question from Ernest:

  A closer look at Freoh's edits other than Quantum computers seems to show him as repeatedly presenting himself into a SJW for the various causes which he considers to be his own, and then to spend hours, days, and even weeks grinding down other editors who might not agree with his SJW opinions."[135]

  This isn't a random assumption of someone making personal attacks. Maybe it's reasonable to want to not be called an SJW, which is a negative remark. I find it important to mention that this comment also came on a thread about Freoh's behavior.

  Such comments are indeed undoubtedly uncivil, and it is not such an outlandish or alien expectation to see them not be made, and least of all on a page about the subject's civility being called into question. As I have said before, if anyone believes Freoh -- or anyone, for that matter -- is uncivil, then why venture to deign and fall to the level they believe he is on? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that calling editors SJWs is not helpful and can reasonably be seen as uncivil. Retinalsummer (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose the question lies in whether one considers questions about competence to inherently qualify as attacks. I would contend that they are not inherently attacks, and I am not concerned with persuading you. The snide comment was unhelpful; if you're going to join the ranks of the civility police, you'll have to start holding yourself to a higher standard than that. I do agree that the SJW comment was uncalled-for, but that doesn't really change the clear and obvious problems with Freoh's behavior. They have a battleground mentality, as has been clearly demonstrated yet again below. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Pointless --JBL (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Then would you defend asking someone whether they're inadequate, inept, unqualified, and useless? – .Raven  .talk 22:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Probably not, but can you point me to a diff in which those words were used? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC) If you click that link, you'll see they're synonyms of incompetent. – .Raven  .talk 22:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) According to a dictionary that has no knowledge of the nuanced meanings terms can come to have within distinct communities such as Wikipedia. I do not think it is appropriate to replace another user's words with synonyms and then to imply that the synonyms are what the user meant. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC) I do not think it is appropriate – I can't believe you just called Raven tasteless irrelevant garbage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC) AN/I thread to follow. [not really] – .Raven  .talk 22:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC) That was a thesaurus, whose other synonyms include incapable; amateur; bungling; unfit. Only amateur there might not be a put-down, and only if used as "not taking pay". The associated dictionary entry for incompetent contains even worse: "4... a mentally deficient person." – .Raven  .talk 22:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Still not interested in synonyms, and I'm even less interested in using a dictionary to tell me what words mean in the specific context of Wikipedia. Discussions of editor competence are a staple of these noticeboards. If you have a problem with the terminology, you're going to be correcting a lot of people. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Apologies if it came across as snide. I meant it to be more humorous than anything else. At any rate, the SJW comment was indeed uncalled for, and since it was pointed out, there is indeed merit to his concerns. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'd be a better mood for humor if it weren't for your insistence on Zapruder-level analysis of critical comments directed towards Freoh while at the same time you wave a dismissive hand at the extensive evidence of that user's own problematic conduct. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Have I been dismissive?

  "This is not to preach about his innocence"

  "That is, other people being guilty of the same crime obviously does not make Freoh innocent." Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 23:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Brief acknowledgment is not the same thing as meaningful engagement. The bulk of your focus has been on the SJW comment and BusterD's use of the word 'incompetent'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think there is a slight misunderstanding. For instance, you see the use of "incompetence" in this context as being not outside the realms of civility. In this same sense, I don't see problematic conduct from Freoh. I see him responding to the conduct of comments and behavior. If you want something that isn't about competence and SJWs, then I did say this in my original post:

  From General Ization in the canvassing link: Sorry, I'm not a party to this debate, and I agree with Freoh it was inappropriate to try to draft me into it based on my contact with that editor concerning a completely different issue in August."

  This isn't any sort of deep analysis, either. This is just clicking on the links provided. I only brought up the comment on competence because, well, it kind of proves the point. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 00:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, it didn't prove any point because the comment on competence was not uncivil. Your obfuscation will help Freoh to get off here with a very light sanction if any, but I'll be shocked if they aren't back at ANI sooner than later. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  My obfuscation? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 01:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  [edit conflict] I should add I deliberately chose to mention WP:Clean start at the beginning of my closure of the gaslighting ANI thread. There's absolutely nothing wrong with fresh starts and the reason for any editor's fresh start is not even our business. As wikipedians we extend fresh start editors, even formerly blocked and banned editors, the same good faith we extend first day contributors. I did not paint Freoh in my closure as a new account in order to tarnish that account, but to put him on notice that his future misbehaviors would be viewed through the fresh start policy lens. My expectation is (again, quoting CLEANSTART): "The behavior of the new account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny." That's the policy. Freoh was notified and warned. Now he's accountable for his actions in that light. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - From my observations, Freoh is not disruptive. He displays a creditable degree of curiosity and eagerness to examine potential biases. Although some might perceive these as real, and others imagined, I see Freoh approaching it with brazen determination, and I would never say he wields force or disruptive tactics. While there is a degree of stubbornness, I do not believe he has ever sought to scourge or lame pages and discussions after a consensus has gone against him. I cannot view every alleged attack Freoh has supposedly made. Even in the material linked that is supposedly against him, I don't see anything stand out as being particularly "disruptive". From General Ization in the canvassing link: Sorry, I'm not a party to this debate, and I agree with Freoh it was inappropriate to try to draft me into it based on my contact with that editor concerning a completely different issue in August." This one example suggests, to me, that his accusation was not bad faith and appears to be founded in some logic or evidence. Again, I cannot view every instance of this, and I am not exactly a judge on this or anything. I cannot in good conscience puff and trumpet to others that Freoh's comments and approach are from malice or ill will, and such a declaration on my part would, I feel, be an unwarranted condemnation. In the other example provided (no personal attacks regarding ErnestKrause), Freoh had left the comment because he was called an SJW and had SJW opinions. Let any charge that Freoh is against the spirit or goodness of the project be carried out with the same verve to the peers who make comments such as these. — Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Maxx, and... I might easily not have !voted at all, but to see "Support"s based on unproven allegations of sockpuppetry and misusing a Clean Start is upsetting in itself. The subject offered to privately provide their prior ID to a CheckUser; surely the conditions of the prior account's closure could also have been confirmed at that time. But none of these "Support" !voters are asking for that confirmation. What to think when people neglect an offer of proof? – .Raven  .talk 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Needs to be educated on civil behaviour, not beaten to the ground with a ban. If they're a sock, take them to the board; if there's a clean start violation, let them know that's a problem. We can consider interaction or topic bans though, if that helps. Lourdes 06:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Having first-hand experience with Freoh's behavior, including unsubstantiated claims of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring, I support the proposal per above. Pizzigs (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment My instinct is that I don't wish to see Freoh banned because I think they bring some balance to the POV presented on these articles, and at the least raise some good topics for discussion, but I am quite dismayed that Freoh has not taken the opportunity of the last ANI to tone things down, drop the stick, and avoid generating so much friction and conflict. When a formal warning is issued, the thing to do is avoid the conflicts that lead to it. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose if the CLEANSTART was to avoid sharing the user's personally identifiable information, it is obviously and clearly irrelevant here. Accusing a CLEANSTART account of sockpuppeteering purely because they are a CLEANSTART account and without any knowledge of the underlying case smells of prejudice to me. No opinion on the rest of the case. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I have not accused Freoh of sockpuppetry. Freoh used the terminology himself, not me. I have pointed out that Freoh is a clean start account and he is not following those rules. Wikipedia has given Freoh an enormous grant of good faith by offering them this restart. Freoh is not keeping their end of the bargain. BusterD (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @BusterD: Above you "endorse[d] Tamzin's views" which DID accuse Freoh of WP:SOCK. If you do not join in that, perhaps you might amend your comment to say so? – .Raven  .talk 15:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  You have misread Tamzin, an editor whose reputation for boldness, agency and good judgement is well-founded. She says: '"misusing a clean start" is per se sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. And WP:CLEANSTART expects editors to refrain from disruptive editing or else be considered sockpuppets.' I subscribe wholeheartedly to those views. But as to accusation she writes: if I could prove that to a satisfactory degree I would have just blocked. Tamzin wouldn't merely accuse. If they have sufficient evidence they might just block. So you've clearly misread Tamzin's actual words. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @BusterD: I suppose it's a bit of semantics. I don't think there's enough evidence of "outright sockpuppetry" to justify a block, but I do think there's very straightforward evidence of a violation of a different part of the sockpuppetry policy, namely misuse of a clean start. Violating that provision is still sockpuppetry, just not the sort that first comes to mind when one hears that phrase. It's no different from when we say an editor may not have engaged in outright socking but then still block them for meatpuppetry (a kind of sockpuppetry). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  If the previous account was closed due to a release of PI – as stated, with an offer to verify prior ID (which could also verify the conditions of closure) – then "misuse of clean start" isn't an issue, because it wasn't due to misbehavior... and isn't any kind of "puppetry". So it's really odd that we keep having this brought up, without anyone taking up Freoh's offer. – .Raven  .talk 20:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support for lack of civility, disruptive editing and generally NOTHERE. This user's combative relationship with other editors is made plain on their talk page, which features an autobiography mostly made up of spats with others that this user is clearly proud of. There has been no change since the ANI and zero sign that they are willing to change. Retinalsummer (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I can understand and appreciate many users' concerns about a WP:CLEANSTART violation but I believe .Raven brought up an important point about such discussion. Freoh states that their clean start was due to Personally Identifiable Information cropping up adjacent their original account. Without a checkuser to confirm or reject this claim, or even someone claiming they recognize this user from their behavior, We have no reason to not believe them per AGF. I think most Support !votes so far are not completely predicated on the clean start violation, but it has regardless affected this proposal. Personally, I would suggest an understanding that a clean start for PII concerns is functionally a different mechanic than a clean start to distance oneself from past behavior. The latter is meant to distance one's present editing from their previous work/reputation on WP, while the former is distancing one's present editing from their real life identity, something which should never matter on WP, COI aside. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, there just seems too much confusion about the good faith clean start, which may or may not actually be a formal clean start but a volunteer action. Maybe an admin can work with Freoh to clear that up (especially since it's given as half the reason for this indef nom). Aside from that, Freoh seems to walk the line with civility issues but, although I don't follow their edits, might be improving over time and as long as the improvement is in the right direction then that's a personal judgement (remember, indef is serious, so the reasons to apply it seem like they should also be very serious without a chance of a light at the end of the tunnel). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment : It seems we're getting a bit side tracked here. One editor introduced the idea of a sock, and I don't think that's the case with Freoh, even though there may be other Fresh-Start issues - I can't say off hand. I was the victim of sock vandalism in several cases (as Tamzin can attest to), and hiding behind a sock doesn't seem to be Freoh's style. The real issue, imo, is the prolonged gaslighting, refusal to drop the stick, and compound accusations to multiple editors time and again, esp after being warned at the ANI of last March. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Gwillhickers. My comment was not about a sock but about Freoh's offer to prove his change of name was legit, which, please notice, is half the accusation against him. Comments below indicate that nobody has yet to take him up on this reasonable offer. Maybe in the light of that you can cut your suggested ban to 16 days, because half of the question may be inaccurate and lots of editors have based their support comments partly on that. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the sock part of it. Only a couple of editors put that on the table. As I've indicated I'm not suspecting anything to do with sock issues, and from what's been posted here, neither are most folks, including BusterD.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think Freoh has done any specific thing that warrants the "capital punishment" of expulsion. While their behavior in prolonging arguments tends to create a toxic environment for other editors, a shorter ban, 48-72 hours, for example, seems more appropriate. It would also serve as a warning to Freoh to "put down the stick", as Gwillhickers expressed it, rather than going on interminably in content disputes. Should they fail to heed the warning and we find ourselves back here in a few months, then the case will be "open and shut", that is, much easier for other editors to decide. My advice to all, including both Freoh and Gwillhickers, is to try to think about "the other guy" once in a while and with that, do whatever you can to make Wikipedia a better place to be. Allreet (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree, given the ANI warning of march, that a temporary block would be more in order. An Indef is usually meted out for sock issues, serious threats, repeated vandalism and such, which is why I abstained from casting a Support vote, though admittedly, yesterday I came close to doing so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to support a second formal warning, maybe just a simple one like "Freoh is admonished again to tone it down, dial it back, and when appropriate, to drop the stick." —DIYeditor (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Freoh already got the formal warning. Failure to sanction obvious violations merely communicates that the warnings are toothless. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I admit I have been avoiding looking into details of this dispute since the warning because it simply became annoying to me, which is why I left my !vote above at a "comment". Now I feel obligated to look more closely at it. I can see what you mean about ignorance of a formal warning being the last straw before a block. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Enough is enough, The fact they edit talkpages more than contributing to the project tells me all I need to know about this user. Nothing of value will be lost by blocking them. –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  People whose edits are disputed, but do NOT discuss them on talkpages, are called edit-warriors, a deprecated behavior. Instead Freoh engages in article-talkpage discussions slightly more often than editing articles (39% vs 36%), and this is blockable behavior? Wow. – .Raven  .talk 02:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No one has asserted that Freoh is an edit warrior, only that this individual has repeatedly been the subject of gaslighting and IDHT behavior, here at ANI and elsewhere, compounded by incessant accusations to many editors on all sorts of Talk pages. As Davey2010 points out, the amount of edits on Talk pages compared to constructive contributions to articles is glaring, and is no coincidence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm seeing "incessant accusations" right here, unproven accusations, by other people, of misuse of a clean start, and sockpuppetry – despite Freoh's offer to have his prior ID confirmed (and with that the opportunity to confirm the conditions of its closing), an offer which nobody is even trying to take up. If this sort of treatment had been directed at me, I'd be complaining about it too, and I expect the stress would cut down on my editing time. Does no-one take responsibility for their effects on others any more? – .Raven  .talk 03:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure that this subthread, which was opened less than 30 hours ago, has probably caused Freoh some measure of stress. But I don't really see how that explains this editor's editing patterns over the preceding 10 months. Mind you, I don't agree that a high rate of talk page participation is inherently problematic, but in this case the evidence has shown a pattern of battleground editing. If you can get an admin to confirm Freoh's claims regarding their previous account, that's well and good, but it won't negate the behavioral issues which IMO are sufficient cause for the community to part ways with this individual. By the way, with regard to that parting shot in your closing sentence, I'm not seeing any indication that Freoh has taken responsibility for the effects of their battleground behavior. You appear to be applying a harmful double standard by minimizing Freoh's own ABF approach to editing while rebuking those editors who are justifiably skeptical about the validity of this cleanstart. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't wrap my head around the fact that several editors are ignoring (if not outright denying) a documented history of disruption because they got caught up on some wording about how clean start editors are expected to hold themselves to a high standard. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"unproven accusations"?? – that everyone is just spinning matters out of thin air? The issue, as I've clearly indicated above, is not about sock issues, at least with almost all of us, but prolonged gaslighting, wp:IDHT, and indeed, accusations. The record(s) speaks for itself. Suggest you look into matters more thoroughly. Thanx . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... prolonged gaslighting, wp:IDHT, and indeed, accusations." – What I see at Talk:Constitution..., for instance, is a sad show of two sides talking past each other. Freoh looks at the influence of the wealthy and powerful on and in state legislatures, which chose the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and how the Senate (with 3x longer terms than the House, and originally chosen by, thus answerable to, state legislatures, not direct popular elections) represented and embodied privilege; and he pertinently wonders which "We the People" did this structure chiefly serve... especially given who was excluded from the newly guaranteed rights and liberties. He's met with insistence that the idealistic language of the document answers him, and that he must be anti-American for doubting it. Gaslighting, WP:IDHT, and accusations, indeed. The ad-hominem fallacy, I should add. – .Raven  .talk 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Raven, Why are you posting on what seems to be every ANI/AN thread here? I had to close this thread yesterday because you were bludgeoning it to death and you're now here doing the exact same thing. There is more to Wikipedia than AN/ANI in case you didn't know. Go do something productive and worthwhile with your time. –Davey2010^Talk 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There is always an orchard to judge except one's own. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

What??? EEng 17:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support a temporary block of at least 30 days, over endless gaslighting mostly. Another warning, on top of the last ANI warning, would be sort of senseless and sends the wrong message to other editors. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support block of 72 hours - 30 days such as the closer may find consensus for, but I do not yet find reason for a community ban. If this comes up again, at that time I would say third strike and you're out. What swayed me from merely "comment" to supporting a block was a quick investigation into the allegations about race. Gwillhickers, while I don't completely agree with his position, clearly did not make any uncivil accusations about racism, but instead merely observed what I also observe, that Freoh seemed to be making content decisions based purely on racial categories, in a case of the desired conclusion seeming to drive the selection of evidence and citations, rather than the reverse. I think Freoh actually has some good points (which makes it more difficult to support a block), but to just blankly deny that they are making some assertions based on race is disingenuous, and to try to spin that 180 degrees into faulting Gwillhickers is problematic. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose. See § Response from Freoh.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block (E.C.). First, I do want to make clear that I think this original posting probably should never have been posted here. I think the edits Freoh has presented to show a degree of incivility, but nothing near egregious enough to warrant action here. Sometimes talk pages get contentious and editors get frustrated. I also think some of the discussions mentioned have involved weirdly forumy tangents, but that's also to be expected. Relatedly, I also think Freoh has been a bit uncivil and also has shown a hypersensitivity (and propensity to come back with strong reactions) that seems to exacerbate that issue, but snappiness should be sympathetically seen in the context of the discussion. As both the diffs provided and as Maxxhiato pointed out above, there is relevant context here.
  Second, I'm somewhat alarmed at how quickly people have embraced the indef ban here. I consider myself a decently article-focused editor, but my main space edits also constitute a up a minority of my contributions (partially because I've worked on a few RFCs and a particularly contentious article where discussion is usually required for changes). I also think the WP:CLEANSTART accusations are a bit weak. There's no real evidence that Freoh created a new account to "evade scrutiny". Frankly, the precise nature of the CLEANSTART accusations are a bit difficult to understand: Is it really being contended that the "expectat[ion]" line imposes the threat of an indef block for any violation of community guidelines? I don't actually think that follows from the policy, and, moreover, I think it'd be bad policy: in a discussion full of uncivil remarks, one editor, who created a new account for legitimate reasons, can face an indef ban for their particular uncivil comments?
  I can understand how Freoh's discussion pattern might be frustrating to some editors—one user expressed frustration that Freoh had made several proposals that ended in no consensus [136]. But while divisive proposals might be bigger time drains than proposals in which every editor disagrees with the proposer, but I think the fact that other editors agree with the proposer actually suggests that further conversation should be had. From what I've seen, Freoh is a good-faith editor whose input should be valued even if it's rarely followed.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, minimum 30 day block. The last ANI thread provided Freoh with a chance to modify his behavior, and he apparently did not take it. Enough is enough. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I lack the time and inclination to wade through the laundry list of complaints, but I have become involuntarily familiar with Freoh's behavior thanks to their frequent-flyer status at the admin noticeboards and other prominent discussion boards. This is not a good thing; there aren't many editors with 1700 edits whose names I recognize despite not sharing areas of editing. I suggest that regardless of the outcome of this thread, they take the criticism here seriously, engage in self-reflection, and attempt to moderate their behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support a block of some kind -- the only interactions I've had with Freoh were tedious and seemed to result in constant failures to get the point; it almost felt like I was arguing with someone who was sealioning. In lieu of a total block, perhaps an indefinite topic ban on anything related to America could suffice for now. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't use the word explicitly, but sealioning is exactly what came to mind for me observing Freoh's conduct. I think a topic ban on the U.S. would be a reasonable second choice after an indef, as it covers most (though not all) of Freoh's tendentious activity. And I emphasize that it would need to be U.S. broadly rather than AMPOL, because a lot of this is relation to earlier U.S. history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am conflicted about a TBAN. The problem I have with it is that Freoh, even if problematic behaviorally in specific areas, is also bringing a perspective that may be underrepresented on Wikipedia. I would like to see Freoh (him?) and any other editor branch out from certain "preferred" topic areas that to my mind may be excessively focused on, but I think we should address Freoh's concerns about systemic bias. Then again, the discussions do seem to be lingering for quite a while. I have not kept up with them because I found the entire thing tedious to be honest. All that said, BusterD pointed out that a TBAN was the sanction I had originally suggested myself if the warning was not heeded. I think it would be unfortunate if that had to happen. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  {{pronoun|Freoh|sub[/obj/pos]}}: he / him / his. – .Raven  .talk 00:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: While I haven't read the diffs in detail, the WP:CLEANSTART accusation is so obviously bogus it makes me very suspicious of the other ones. And any indef would be based on the CLEANSTART accusations, as I don't think anyone alleges that Freoh has crossed a bright line regarding incivility. Loki (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Had you "read the diffs in detail", you'd know that Freoh had previously declared the account as a clean start, and that his editing since then has violated the "Editing after a clean start" section of WP:CLEANSTART. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Having read and re-read that section multiple times, I must note: the warning "If you do not make positive changes in your behavior, you may be recognized and held accountable for the actions of your past account(s)" does not threaten punitive charges for ᴄʟᴇᴀɴsᴛᴀʀᴛed accounts' misbehavior over and above what other users face for the same misbehavior – it purely warns that continuation of the old account's behavior may expose the connection, negating the point of the ᴄʟᴇᴀɴsᴛᴀʀᴛ. Likewise the section warns: "... returning to a favorite topic after a clean start carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize and connect the old and new accounts. This can result in arguments, further loss of reputation, and blocks or bans, even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper. For this reason, it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." 'Returning to a favorite topic' is of course not an actual offense ("violation") in itself. – .Raven  .talk 00:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly what Raven said. The idea that Freoh has committed any sort of violation of WP:CLEANSTART is a blatant misreading of WP:CLEANSTART. Loki (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have to say, scanning through this thread, this proposal doesn't seem to follow from what's above. Presumably other people have more experience with Freoh than I do, but what drew my attention was the WP:CLEANSTART stuff. If someone abandons an old account because it revealed personal information and accidentally calls that move a "clean start", that doesn't actually make it a WP:CLEANSTART. The entire premise of WP:CLEANSTART is that there's some behavior, arguments, etc. that you don't want to be associated with anymore. In those cases, yes, it's not appropriate to do so if you're just going to resume the same activity. This isn't a clean start, though -- it's just a rename without the privacy-inhibiting paper trail. I don't think we should be penalizing people for this sort of rename, even if they step into a gotcha by calling it a clean start. I've looked at the opening complaint and a few of the diffs and would probably just suggest no action on this whole thing (on the stuff at the top, calling someone a "SJW" is obnoxious and says more about the person using the term than the target, but doesn't rise to the level of action, and that's about the worst diff in the bunch -- not seeing nearly sufficient evidence of a problem). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything in the above that merits such a severe measure. I don't have knowledge from history but just read the constitution talk page and don't see anything severe. I even saw somethng backwards in the above arguments. Whenever there is contention it is supposed to get handled in talk, yet they are getting derided for doing just that (proportion of talk to editing in the article.) The OP complaint did seem a bit ginned up and I'm firmly aginst all-too-common weaponizing of our systems. And they do seem a bit too combative overall. Some evolution/course correction to be less combative is probably needed. But I see nothing that merits such a severe measure. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support for violations of WP:CLEANSTART, and I don't exactly know what to call the behaviour issue, but a mix of WP:WALRUS/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS/WP:NOTHERE is at play. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment : — The above proposal by BusterD should have been more inclusive, as there seems to be too much focus on Clean Start which tends to ignore the idea of prolonged gaslighting on multiple Talk pages, where many editors have been routinely accused of several types of bias, bad faith, making personal attacks, etc, (examles with links posted above) and in the process repeated arguments and WP:IDHT were commoin place, which has become an issue, with or without the Clean Start issue. Now he is more than suggesting that other editors are simply bullying him, further compounding matters. While an Indef ban is excessive, another formal warning would otoh be dismissing the accounts made by many editors over a good number of months, where this sort of behavior has already been brought to Freoh's attention in an ANI of March -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should have focused on the disruptive editing rather than the clean start issues. But I don't know if it would have made a difference. The previous ANI thread was linked to several times, and Freoh's talk page and contributions are not difficult to access. For whatever reason, there are a handful of users that are totally fine with Freoh's fringe POV being forced through months-long arguments, as well as the frivolous warnings and gaslighting that occur any time someone disagrees with him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, I don't see how Freoh violated the clean start policy or made personal attacks, and the proposed sanction is overly severe for what they have done wrong. Hatman31 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Response from Freoh

First, some apologies:

• BusterD, you are correct that I misremembered the shortcut for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. My daughter started crying just as I finished the post, which distracted me. In my rush, I did not double-check the link. I also forgot to sign that post until a few minutes later, after my daughter had partially calmed down. I apologize for misleading you.
• Gwillhickers, I am sorry that my most recent user page warning was more accusatory than it should have been. In retrospect, I realize that I was not clear about what frustrated me, so I will try to explain (more politely) here. The way that I see it, there are two different kinds of bias on Wikipedia: intentional (bad-faith) editor bias in opposition to Wikipedia's second pillar, and unintentional (good faith) editor bias that is to some extent unavoidable. By suggesting that you expand the Influences section to include non-white examples, I was trying to point out what I saw as an unintentional bias that skewed the page toward white people. It is not that I want to include others on the basis that they are non-white; it is that I felt your proposal was (unintentionally) unbalanced. When you suggested that I wanted to include other such political philosophers simply on the basis that they may be "non white", I interpreted that as an accusation of intentional race-based bias on my part. I see now that there are multiple ways to interpret these comments, and I should have aired my grievances more politely.

A few points on my editing philosophy:

• There is a difference between being combative and confrontational. Wikipedia policy forbids the former, but it encourages the latter. I agree that I am more confrontational than most editors, and I am not afraid to confront others when I feel that their behavior is out of line. Ultimately, I am not doing this to pester others, but to encourage others to strengthen Wikipedia's fourth pillar.
• There is a difference between disruption and disagreement. Wikipedia policy forbids the former, but it encourages discussion when the latter arises. I have focused my efforts on areas which I believe could better adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policies, pages where I disagree with the existing content. As far as I know, this is not forbidden, and this focus falls within the scope of the WP:CSB WikiProject. I am not trying to be a pain, but I do end up in more content disputes as a result of my focus. I suspect that ownership tendencies play a role in the way that other editors defend their content (but I do not accuse anyone of egregious ownership behavior).
• Every editor is biased, and everyone is welcome to share their opinions about content, as long as they follow the policies and guidelines. As I explained on ErnestKrause's talk page, I did not mean to accuse all of those editors of bias; rather, I intended to point out that ErnestKrause's selection of notified editors was significantly skewed toward those who had previously expressed favorable opinions. This seems like a clear-cut case of votestacking, and I still do not understand why people are more upset with my warning than the canvassing itself.
• I agree with GabberFlasted that a user who had a clean start because of personally identifiable information should not be penalized for it.
• "Wasting time" is far too subjective to be a blockable offense on its own.

I feel that my behavior has changed since the previous AN/I thread.

• I have not edit-warred at all.
• Looking at the XTools breakdown, it should be clear that I am not the only one prolonging the discussion at Talk:Constitution of the United States.
• I reached out to BusterD for help, hoping that I could better understand the line between an "uphill battle" and a discussion that is officially dead. Ironically, I had to drop the stick in that discussion, as BusterD seemed to lose interest in actually explaining this distinction, pointing instead to my lack of support among AN/I participants as his evidence of disruption. I would still appreciate someone clarifying the official policy surrounding this distinction.

Several people have cast aspersions against me in this discussion, and I worry that people responding to the survey may change their minds in light of the facts:

• When Freoh is taken to task over various issues he typically resorts to accusing others of "personal attacks", "canvasing", nationalistic bias", "systemic bias", lacking good faith, etc. These user warnings are not my resort. They are real concerns, and I send these warnings for incivility even when my civility is not in question.
• Freoh has had every opportunity to include other perspectives in the article if they are cited in reliable sources, and has never even attempted it. False.
• Freoh mentions an ANI discussion in which he feels he was mistreated. That discussion was started because of his penchant to misrepresent interactions and to "warn" editors for things that they have not done. I am not aware of any warnings I have sent without good cause, except for the one mentioned earlier, which was unintentional and I retract.
• Freoh was recently taken to task in an ANI of March by numerous editors for Gaslighting, engaging in never ending argumentative talk while ignoring well reasoned points in a discussion. I have never gaslit anyone, and I have not ignored any well-reasoned points.
• ... he should have blocked you for making personal attacks on Headbomb in the ANI thread. I made no personal attacks on Headbomb.
• ... misleading piped link in your edit summary ... The edit summary had no piped link.
• ... for the third time I invited Freoh to make any contributions supported by reliable sources. No, you did not. You asked me to present reliable sources after I had already presented two.
• Freoh is a persistent timewaster whos sole purpose appears to be to tendentiously argue on talkpages, wasting the valuable time of other Wikipedia contributors. No, my main purpose is to help articles adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and tendentious editors end up wasting my time in this process.
• The misuse of a clean start is sufficient in itself to ban this editor. I did not misuse a clean start.
• Unfortunately, Freoh did not take this opportunity. I did, as explained earlier.
• ... they frequently twist or distort comments from other editors. If I did this, it was accidental, and if you feel that someone's meaning was distorted, then let me know so that I can fix it.
• ... this is the same sockpuppet account that I mentioned the last time this user appeared at ANI. No, I am not.
• ... the OP's own links to previous discussions provide mountains of evidence himself Freoh refuses to acknowledge, being chock filled with frequent demonstrations of bad faith and civil pov pushing. No, I have always acted in good faith, and the only POV that I push is a neutral POV.
• ... it is quite apparent that BusterD has spent a considerable amount of time familiarizing himself with this situation. No, they have not. As mentioned earlier, when I asked them about the specifics, it seemed they were basing their decision mainly on the comments of others.
• ... unsubstantiated claims of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring ... All of the warnings I left at your page were accompanied by diffs that substantiated the claims.
• ... spats with others that this user is clearly proud of ... I am not proud of these spats. You are the first person who has taken offense to my user page, and I just deleted it.
• Freoh seemed to be making content decisions based purely on racial categories. No, I was not. I was making content decisions based on reliable sources.

Some things that I will work on:

• I will spend more time editing articles and less time on talk pages.
• I will tone down any future user warnings so that they are friendlier, more specific, and more helpful.
• I will be more proactive in starting RfCs when it is clear that a discussion is not going anywhere.
• I am open to other questions that you would like me to answer.

TL;DR: I am not perfect, but I am improving, and far too many people here are casting aspersions against me.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It was the best of apologies, it was the worst of apologies. While I sincerely appreciate that you have apologised, the fact that you immediately followed those apologies with a laundry list of grievances and a frivolous attack on BusterB (that you only withdrew because no one supported it) suggests to me that you are not truly willing to change. The main issue for me is that you have a combative relationship with other editors, and your response does little to show that you are either willing or able to move beyond this kind of hostile interaction. I noted above that I think you have been subject to some mild incivility, which is of course wrong, but that does not excuse your behaviour. I suspect that the likely outcome will be a temporary ban, and I sincerely hope that you will prove me wrong and learn to participate in this project with the spirit of cooperation. Retinalsummer (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I opposed the ban as overkill. But a common complaint has been that you are generally too combative. IMHO for your own enjoyment in Wikipedia as well as what happens in venues like this it would good to genuinely acknowledge this and outline a genuine shift in this area. Second, I don't know the overall background but from a review of the constitution talk page, IMHO you were really seriously bludgeoning it and IMO acknowledging that specific issue for the same reasons and benefits and outlining a general change there would be a good thing. Finally, at the constitution page IMHO you put in an immense amount of effort to get in wording which IMHO was simply more negative sounding that really didn't add information. Of course it could be argued that there is nothing wiki-wrong with that but if this is representative, perhaps outlining a shift in efforts farther away from value-laden additions (which IMO will always be more contentious and less useful) would be good thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Generally agree with North8000 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

North8000, I hope that friendlier user warnings will help others feel less attacked. I do admit that I was commenting a lot at Talk:Constitution of the United States [137], but I think that I have changed significantly on that issue since the last AN/I thread [138]. Most of my effort at that page was spent trying to remove (or at least qualify) Allreet's value-laden additions about the people, so I am not sure what you mean about your last point.  — Freoh 11:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It was a sidebar after my two main points and I also added the disclaimer "Of course it could be argued that there is nothing wiki-wrong with that" and I'm afraid that I might take this too far afield by getting into what would be a content discussion here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is what article talk pages are for. --JBL (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
. . . Freoh, re this statement: I was trying to point out what I saw as an unintentional bias that skewed the page toward white people. It is not that I want to include others "on the basis" that they are non-white; it is that I felt your proposal was (unintentionally) unbalanced. This idea has already been well explained for you, here, here, and here. Your concern that the page is "skewed" is in effect saying the account is crooked, misleading, highly questionable or even untrue. It's like you're complaining that an account about the formation of the Japanese government focuses on the Japanese. If there were various "non-white" philosophers who were highly influential during the founding, and we were ignoring them, intentionally or otherwise, you would have something of a case, but there are none, let alone any that would compare to Montesquieu, Locke and other such political philosophers. As such, your complaint suggests that you have more than a passing bias against whites. I'm sorry, but it seems you are only giving more credence to the concerns over the repetitious Gaslighting and WP:IDHT. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: > "If there were various "non-white" philosophers who were highly influential during the founding, and we were ignoring them, intentionally or otherwise, you would have something of a case, but there are none..." On October 4, 1988, during the 100th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 331 (H.Con.Res. 331) on to the Senate by a vote of 408–8. Then, on October 21, 1988, the Senate approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 76 (S.Con.Res.76, identical to H.Con.Res. 331), by unanimous voice vote. The joint resolution reads, in part: Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including, most notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy; Whereas the confederation of the original Thirteen Colonies into one republic was influenced by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself… RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (THE SENATE CONCURRING), That — (1) the Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution, acknowledges 'the contribution made by the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian Nations to the formation and deve Start with Exemplars of Taking Liberties: The Iroquois Influence Thesis and the Problem of Evidencelopment of the United States;… You were saying? – .Raven  .talk 00:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC) > "Your concern that the page is "skewed" is in effect saying the account is crooked, misleading, highly questionable or even untrue." Fun with synonyms! I know this game! But Merriam-Webster defines "skewed" as: 1) distorted from a true value or symmetrical form     problematic polling methods that resulted in skewed data 2) deviating from what is normal, direct, or accurate     The treatment will later attempt to correct the anorexic's skewed [=distorted] perceptions about her body. Both clearly allowing for inadvertent, unintended distortion. – .Raven  .talk 01:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)e Thanks for your take on word usage, but you might want to refer to Webster. The issue is over the founding era, not 200 years later, and who was of major influence. No "game". Yes, Franklin and others were impressed by the Iroquois Confederacy, but as to what extent this factored into the drafting of the actual Constitution is a matter of opinion and is often contested by a number of historians and archeologists, since the Iroquois Confederation was largely in the form of oral history and largely focused on keeping the peace with other tribes, not so much a form of government for the Indian peoples. The notion of Iroquois influence assumes that the ideals of independence, separation of powers, already in place with a Parliament and the King 100s of years ago, unalienable rights and such were solely the idea of the Iroquois is unfounded, given the history, and is only supported by coincidental and circumstantial evidence at best, misinterpreted The philosophers mentioned were frequently referred to by Madison, Franklin and others before and during the Constitutional Convention -- no mention of the Iroquois Confederacy. I've no issue with mentioning the Iroquois, as I've already covered in the Constitution article, but compared to the philosophers mentioned, covered by numerous reliable sources, there is no such individual among the Iroquois that is notable and so covered by reliable sources. Just general accounts that assumes much. There is also historical opinion that the Iroquois developed many of their ideas from their association with enlightenment thinkers and the founders. In any case, all this is getting off point. Freoh complained that the account "skewed" things towards white individuals, as if this was some sort of gross error. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) To look into this further, start with Exemplars of Taking Liberties: The Iroquois Influence Thesis and the Problem of Evidence, Philip Levy, 1996. JSTOR 2947206 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: > "... the Iroquois Confederation was largely in the form of oral history..." – To say that Confederacy (also called the Haudenosaunee, or the Five Nations, then the Six Nations) – which still exists – is "largely in the form of oral [or any other kind of] history" is as meaningless as saying the USA is largely in the form of [any kind of] history. There are histories about them, but they themselves are not histories of any form. This appears to be a case of category error. > "... and largely focused on keeping the peace with other tribes, not so much a form of government for the Indian peoples" – You may be thinking of the Great Law of Peace, which did and does keep peace between the member Nations, but also set the structure of their shared government... not that of "the Indian peoples" in general. > "compared to the philosophers mentioned,... there is no such individual among the Iroquois that is notable" – I suppose then we must delete the articles about such Haudenosaunee individuals as the Great Peacemaker, Jigonhsasee, and Hiawatha; or (some 5½ centuries later) Canasatego, who in 1744 told colonists "We have one thing further to say, and that is We heartily recommend Union and a Good Agreement between you our Brethren. Never disagree, but preserve a strict Friendship for one another, and thereby you as well as we will become the Stronger. Our wise Forefathers established Union and Amity between the Five Nations; this has made us formidable, this has given us great weight and Authority with our Neighboring Nations. We are a powerful confederacy, and, by your observing the same Methods our wise Forefathers have taken, you will acquire fresh Strength and Power; therefore, whatever befalls you, never fall out with one another." Benjamin Franklin's 1754 Albany Plan, like the Iroquois government, even featured a "Grand Council". > "There is also historical opinion that the Iroquois developed many of their ideas from their association with enlightenment thinkers and the founders." – Were they time travelers, then? The Great Law of Peace was composed, and those three co-founders of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy lived, in the 1100's, before the Enlightenment or the Magna Carta or Columbus's voyages. > "Freoh complained that the account 'skewed' things towards white individuals, as if this was some sort of gross error." – You mean skewing things toward white individuals is entirely correct? – .Raven  .talk 07:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks for trying to cover one side of the story, but I haven't asserted anything the sources haven't covered, and stopped reading after the first few sentences. This is turning into a wall of text discussion. Freoh's focus was finding "non-white" influences, and as of yet has not produced any individual that compares to the political philosophers mentioned, and thus far all we have are general and accounts about the Iroquois from which much speculation has been based, which continues to be quite debatable among historians to say the least – nothing in the way of uncontested established facts in terms of what significantly influenced the founders, and to assert anything otherwise would be skewing the account. If you'd like to continue with this topic in depth it should occur in a different forum, not in the middle of an ANI. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC) > "stopped reading after the first few sentences" – How utterly convincing: IDIDNTREADTHAT. – .Raven  .talk 17:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This is a content discussion and I don't see the direct relevance to behavioral issues. Please take it to the relevant article talk pages. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Note that the above 00:32 10 June 2023 response by Gwillhickers, entirely a content dispute, was the first in a subthread hatted by administrator JayBeeEll – but then Gwillhickers moved his own comment (alone) out from under the hat, breaking the subthread. In case anyone still wonders how well Gwillhickers follows WP protocol.... – .Raven  .talk 00:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This is coming from someone who ignored WP protocol with a wall of text content dispute, appropriately hatted by JBL, as he did with another of Raven's comments -- nothing to do with behavioral issues.. Raven, please sign you comments. I was addressing Freoh's "non-white" concerns -- it wasn't a lengthy take on content, per you apparent attempt to sidetrack the issue. Please don't further compound the ANI with another lengthy message any more than you have already. If you have any further comments about me, please talk them to my Talk page. This is not the forum to go on about such matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC) > "appropriately hatted by JBL" – JBL hatted the subthread starting with your 00:32 10 June 2023 content dispute response; his edit-comment was "hat off-topic for this forum", his hat-header was and remains "This is what article talk pages are for." You moved your own comment out from under that hat, but call a direct rebuttal to your claims an "apparent attempt to sidetrack the issue", and say "This is not the forum..." – well, then, it wasn't the forum for you to make those claims, either. Or do content disputes belong here only if you make them? – .Raven  .talk 08:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Proposal: BusterD boomerang

This discussion has been closed by Freoh. Please do not modify it.
This is an attempt to avoid future disruption, not a revenge filing, but I will withdraw it per WP:SNOW.  — Freoh 22:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
BusterD has demonstrated an inability to assume good faith. When I asked them for help, they indicated that they were basing their decisions on comments made about me, and was unwilling to consider the possibility that these other editors were misrepresenting me. They threatened me with a block purely for overlinking in talk page discussions, and less than 35% of their edits are to mainspace, so I think that a six-month topic ban from WP:AN/I would help BusterD contribute to the project in more helpful ways.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Yes this is definitely a good way to show you are not combative. --JBL (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC) References  Support as proposer.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose — massive wall of text, in addition to the fact that this proposal makes little sense. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose: I do think BusterD has been a bit quick to jump to conclusions here, but if that behavior is deserving of a block, then I'm not sure how the proposer's behavior does not. To be clear, I think neither should be blocked. Also, I have to add: above, I mentioned that Freoh seemed to have a hypersensitivity and, more serious, a propensity to retaliate in uncivil ways. Those traits aren't helpful. Unfortunately, I think this proposal is an example of those traits in action.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose Reading the diff for "threatened me with a block purely for overlinking in talk page discussions" shows a disturbing misrepresentation of BusterD's comment. Schazjmd (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose the tide seemed to be turning against a cban for Freoh, but I suspect they may have just turned it back. This revenge filing was ill-advised to say the least. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Ahem. Not just gaslighting anymore, we see. Thank you, User:Freoh, for your BOLD. Bold is a great starting place for a wikipedian. Unfortunately CIVIL is a pillar. Allow me to wax BOLD: If you can't bring civil to your game, you can't play here. I should offer User:Freoh and the community an apology. It might have been wise if I'd merely proposed what DIYeditor offered during the gaslighting discussion: if this warning is not heeded, a narrowly construed topic ban from history, human civilization, politics, government and science be put in place. DIYeditor — (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC) In any event, we still need to deal with this user, not just decline to sanction them. I'm perceived to be involved now. So I'll let the community wrap this up. BusterD (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll deign to add: we might need to start asking the block and ban question to admin candidates again because a number of editors in the discussion above are using the terms interchangeably. If I wanted to block Freoh, I've already seen sufficient bad behavior and presented adequate evidence to defend myself from bad block charges. Any admin could block. Anytime. I have stubbornly chosen not to block. I have instead proposed the community sanction with some form of ban. A ban derives from consensus, not one rogue sysop. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Gaslighting is a serious offense, one that I have already denied, and one that Levivich has described as an aspersion. I have asked you to provide a diff where I was uncivil, and the only one that you gave was because I used the WP:LISTEN shortcut. If it is a ban-worthy offense to use Avanu's shortcut, then you should discuss that at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing, rather than trying to ban its first-time users. I am feeling bullied, and I do not understand why you continue to be so disrespectful.  — Freoh 21:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's understandable and unfortunate that you feel bullied. I am surprised more editors haven't come to your defense to be honest, both in the articles and at ANI. As I said above, I am also dismayed that you did not take the opportunity of the formal warning to chill out a little, maybe branch out into some other discussions or topic areas. Having systemic bias addressed is a legitimate cause, but I think your approach is alienating a lot of people. To try to turn this around on BusterD was peculiar. What I would do in your situation is issue a mea culpa rather than blame others. Whether you feel you are in the right or not is less relevant than navigating the social environment here on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Closure proposal

Freoh's apology has the pluses and minuses; but it shows involvement and a commitment to try and work with the crowd. We can keep berating them and asking them to bow down to all; but that is not required here in my opinion. This ANI is documented. If the issue repeats, we see past issues in context and take a decision thereon. Freoh seems to have understood the context. And I believe (given their statements) that they will use a more congenial and collaborative format of interacting with editors in the future. I propose we close this ANI report with a simple statement,

• "Freoh is formally warned and advised to be CIVIL in all their interactions. The community strongly expects Freoh to take various comments on this ANI proactively and to collaborate congenially going ahead. In case of future infractions, administrators will have the leeway to undertake escalating warnings and/or blocks, if required."

Lourdes 09:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Works for me.  — Freoh 11:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Roxy the dog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is: WP:CBAN imposed. As mentioned in the #pre-Closure consultation, I find that there is community consensus for a CBAN, based on the strength and quality of the arguments rather than by vote count (WP:NOTAVOTE). As also mentioned, there is roughly two proposals: CBAN, and less severely, GENSEX TBAN. However, I found that many in the latter camp had failed to meaningfully address their opponents' arguments. To recall, there were two principal problems highlighted: a longstanding pattern of personal attacks and incivility, generally, and bigotry (adjacent and outright), specifically.

On the general, take for example a user who stated Support temp block for personal attacks, which should be made indef if they continue after unblock (emphasis added), and then contrast it with Canterbury Tail's point that this is a continuation of a very very long period of incivility, insults, belittling and personal attacking of other editors (emphasis added). So the strength and quality of these two opposing arguments are obviously not the same.

As for the specific (bigotry both adjacent and outright), I made it clear in the brief consultation phase that I am "highly sympathetic" with trans and non-binary editors who do not wish to share the editing ecosystem with, as SamX had put it, people who invalidate [their] very existence. Another important argument distinguished WP:GENSEX as a topic area from transphobia, overall. This was most succinctly expressed by the OP herself (on her talk page), when she pointed out the folly in taking transphobia to be a topic area problem rather than bigotry unacceptable everywhere (diff). Either way, I found there was general agreement that a clear and unambiguous commitment to improve, in both aspects, was lacking.

When I cited the excerpt by RtD admitting [his] failings, I wanted to gauge the views of trans and non-binary editors especially, as to whether that comment, at least to start with, was enough for them to reconsider the CBAN. It's obvious, however, that their response to this was a resounding no. Probably the most charitable view was that by Sideswipe9th, who called it the beginning of an apology, but also commendably left the door open to [RtD] should he desire it to engage the matter further. An opportunity which I highly encourage RtD to take her up on, not least as I'd wager it is likely the only way a future appeal might succeed (I'd recommend waiting a minimum of 6 months before filing one, in any case).

I realize it might be seen as controversial to close this complaint as rapidly as the banning policy allows (72 hours), but I don't think waiting several more days not to mention weeks, will be of use. I say this because I don't envision an influx happening that would meaningfully change its outcome. But I do however envision more strife if it stays open. And as for new proposals, like an WP:IBAN, etc., I think that ship has sailed for now, and that if applicable, these should be proposed in the framework of an appeal (conditional to it and so on).

At a time when trans rights are under unrelenting widespread attack, especially in the American political landscape, I personally believe that decisive action is needed to combat that bigotry. To try to diminish transphobic bigotry from other forms, like racism or misogyny or ethnocentrism and so on — I found there's general agreement (though I wish it were more universal) against this. Combatting bigotry has always been a major challenge on the project. As an admin approaching 10K blocks, it has been my number one autofill block summary for many years (screenshot). When its source, however, is a veteran editor, it's crucial that it be nipped in the bud, which is my read of the prevailing consensus here. Thank you all. El_C 10:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• Special:Diff/1158630150

Hardly deadnaming, Manning was very well known, and still is, by both his pretransition and her posttransition names. A bit of an over reaction Maddy. [emphasis added]

This comment may seem relatively innocuous to the unfamiliar, but it is a part of Roxy the dog's long history of transphobic editing. See in particular this arbitration enforcement thread and this topic ban and the connected history on Lia Thomas and Roxy the dog's user talk page.

This issue falls under WP:GENSEX, but I am filing here because another topic ban is not the right remedy here. Transphobia must not be tolerated, whether the topic is transgender athletes or Siamese hairless cats. Roxy has been given so many chances to improve both in this area and others. It's time to say enough is enough. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Well, not the right time to say enough is enough, eh. Roxy is just presenting why SilkTork may have made a mistake. Roxy isn't claiming that people who change their names should be forcefully referred to with their past names. Don't get me wrong. I have no love lost for Roxy. But this is not his to take the blame. Lourdes 10:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Addendum - Roxy's absolutely misplaced 'transexual hounding' comments nukes this whole theme I was peddling. I will support an indefinite exit from Wikipedia for this individual in any manner whatsoever. A topic ban will not be enough as the person will end up spewing such vitriol in other topic areas and we will be back to where we are. Lourdes 04:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I had just mentioned this, though Shibbolethink walked through it a bit just below. I think we do need to be really careful about misrepresenting RtD on that quote, especially in terms of WP:NPA. It does appear the claim by RtD that Maddy from Celeste was hounding them related to trans topics with this ANI had some merit based on discussion below, but instead it has been spun into claiming RtD thinks all trans people are hounders.

  Now would be the time to get clarification from the person who said it with a pitchfork handy rather than throw it first and ask questions later. I still think RtD absolutely needs to be out of this topic one way or another, but that quote really needs to be addressed so we can be sure we aren't casting aspersions or violating WP:PREVENTATIVE going beyond the obvious topic ban. KoA (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's a very, very generous interpretation of the comment, KoA. First, it requires us to assume the "standard" refers to, what, such hounding being standard for the topic area? Since, if RtD's (unsubstantiated) allegation was that hounding is standard for Maddy, RtD would presumably have said "standard Maddy hounding". But if what is meant is that it's standard for the topic area, I mean, who phrases that that way? The logical thing would be to say "standard GENSEX hounding", "standard trans-issues hounding", something like that; "transexual" isn't a topic area. If I felt hounded on a UK article, and felt such hounding to be systematic, I wouldn't call that "standard British hounding"; setting aside offensiveness it's just a phrasing that makes no sense. For someone with no history of offensive comments in the GENSEX area, maybe there's be room to assume they just picked a very strange phrasing, but at a certain point we can only assume so much good faith. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not the only one who's noticed it, but I'm pretty big on making sure we aren't blatantly misrepresenting someone in a large degree when it seems a fair chance of it happening. That's especially since people have been "confused" by RtD's shorthand language for mundane things in the past like X750's comment below. Still really sloppy on RtD's part (that's being generous) if I'm right and not something the topic area needs to be working with, but I am really cautious of putting words in their mouth, especially ones that would fall into major NPA territory on our part. If it were obvious it was in the other direction and the context didn't match how it currently does, then I'd also be saying more than a topic ban was needed. KoA (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Roxy has made eight comments since being blocked, including in direct resonse to requests to clarify what "standard transexual hounding" means, and has so far declined to do so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think this is particularly egregious, despite past reports about the user. The initial link in question was talking about the discussion around Chelsea Manning when she was still known by her deadname, which the article was named at the time, and something we even include in her article to this day. Indeed, Roxy used "he" to indicate pre-transition but "her" to indicate post-transition. That distinction might be clumsiness on Roxy's part, but I don't think it's malicious. If Roxy had continued to refer to post-transition Manning by "he" then I'd agree it's an issue. — Czello ^(music) 10:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Addendum I retract this in light of Roxy's later comments. — Czello ^(music) 21:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  To accuse me of transphobia really is a most unsavoury personal attack that should not be tolerated. - Roxy the dog 10:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  To me this doesn't looks like "clumsiness", but like an anti-trans editor taking any chance to sneak in transphobic comments. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I refuse to believe Roxy the dog is acting in good faith after:

  • Special:Diff/1090072324 – making a grossly transphobic comment (Roxy later "apologized for any offense taken" while insisting it was an "innocent remark" at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive305#Roxy the dog)
  • User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 12#February 2023 – edit-warring BLP violations into an article about a transgender person not once...
  • User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 12#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction – ...but twice. Note also the grossly incivil behaviour here and in edit summaries on Lia Thomas, and the general agreement that Roxy should have been indeffed already then.

  The only sincerity I see here is Roxy the dog's sincere commitment to attacking trans people.

  Regardless of what you may believe about their motivations, it doesn't actually matter that much. If Roxy the dog is unable to edit without unintentionally attacking trans people, that is no better than doing so intentionally. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• No action needed per Czello. starship.paint (exalt) 14:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • In light of later comments, support broadly construed TBAN and oppose CBAN per Apaugasma and Tryptofish down below. starship.paint (exalt) 09:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• This should have been handled via a talk page discussion, not here. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:11D2:27F5:DBAB:DA77 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think this is enough for a community site ban, but I'm surprised that an editor with as much experience in this area as Roxy doesn't yet know that they should not be using 'he' to refer to Manning unless she has indicated she prefers it which AFAIK she has not. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  (EC) In fact, from Roxy's posts, it's not even clear to me that Roxy understands that it's not acceptable to refer to Chelsea Manning by her deadname on Wikipedia unless she has indicated it's fine (which again AFAIK she has not), no matter how common it is, with the exception of where it's needed for discussion or in articles in accordance with MOS:GENDERID. (Which is very very rare for any editor comments.) Again maybe not enough for a community site ban but I can understand why Maddy is so concerned when an editor with as much experience in this area as Roxy still does not understand that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Take it to WP:AE if you really feel this deserves scrutiny through a WP:CTOPICS lens. IMO, even if Roxy used this as an intentional opportunity to be an asshole, it's not actionable. We are not the pronoun police and it does not rise to the level of WP:ZT. Far more egregious behavior has been (wrongly) tolerated in the past, but we shouldn't overcorrect and ban for ostensibly minor infractions. Roxy should be warned and that's it. There's always more WP:ROPE. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• EvergreenFir makes good point but Special:Diff/1090072324 is transphobic (that is unrelated to pronouns). Casting aspersions over use of pronouns is like WP:COLORWAR, but comparing trans people to dogs is not acceptable. ibicdlcod (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I totally agree, but Special:Diff/1090072324 was from a year ago. I assume that's already been handled? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't notice the time. My fault. ibicdlcod (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Update: I thank Roxy the dog for dispelling any further doubt over whether they should edit Wikipedia: Special:Diff/1158676382. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Perfect example. - Roxy the dog 15:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• No action needed. Some editors above appear to be digging up years ago comments that were already discussed in detail at the time, and have very little bearing here. At issue is whether or not these most recent comments are problematic, and I do not find them to be. It appears like a good faith effort from an editor to discuss the thorny issues of pronouns pre and post transition with attention paid to the sources. I see no violations of policy in these most recent comments. At most, I would support a two way IBAN for these editors (maddy and Roxy)
  Edit (18:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)): I have been persuaded by many of the comments elsewhere in this thread re: our differential treatment of gensex and race/ethnicity/religion issues. I would support a broad gensex TBAN but I don't think this issue rises to the level of an indef site block, not yet anyway. Blocks are meant to be preventative and should be tailored to the area of disruption. As far as i can tell, this behavior doesn't extend outside of this topic space, so a TBAN is the most appropriate sanction here imo. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  What part of this does not violate policy? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It appears to be a critique of your behavior, alleging that you are hounding Roxy by bringing up minor infractions at ANI. Which is allowed (and indeed encouraged) on user talk, if the allegation has, at minimum, potential merit. (per ASPERSIONS). I'll grant you that it does paint all transgender users with a single broad brush, which is wrong. And probably merits a warning for that. But it doesn't rise to the level of sanctions imo. I would tell you to be careful not to BLUDGEON this discussion by responding to every comment and argument. If your arguments have merit (which they do, they at least deserve discussion and consideration imo) then others will take up that banner and argue along those lines without you personally having to do it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  You think it's okay to say I'm doing "standard transexual hounding of people they dont like"? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll grant you that it does paint all transgender users with a single broad brush, which is wrong. And probably merits a warning for that. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  No it merits a site ban. It's one thing to criticise an individual. It's completely another to blame that individual's actions on some aspects of their identity or to suggest that it's someone all such members with that identity do. Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I would add that it's also a particularly dumb comment as such comments normally are. I am one of the ones who called Roxy out on the issue. Yes only after it came here but they were responding at least in part to me. While IDGAF if people think I am, the simple reality is I am not transgender or trans-sexual. I'm sure there are a number of editors who are transgender who do not feel the same as me. (Not an editor, but a well known personality comes to mind.) So blaming my calling them out on my trans-sexuality is just dumb. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh I read the comment as actually referring to Maddy and not you, Nil Einne. But I think on further review, as I say above, that it is egregious enough in the context of all the rest of this that RTD should probably be GENSEX TBAN'd. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  The definition of transphobia. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 17:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  The anti-trans stuff doesn't extend outside the area of trans people? That makes sense, yes. The general incivility that they've been warned for by arbcom wasn't related to trans people, though. I'm not sure what this behavior you mean exactly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• While I agree with EvergreenFir that this is better handled at AE, I'm not sure I agree that this is not actionable. Roxy is already subject to a partial GENSEX TBAN for similar issues on the Lia Thomas article and associated talk page. They should know that this type of contribution has gotten them into trouble just three months ago, and that any further examples of it are likely to be seen in a massively unfavourable light.
  With regards to sanctions, at minimum I think we need to broaden the existing topic ban to encompass all GENSEX content. It's pretty clear that Roxy is not able to set aside their prejudices against trans people, including making further deliberately provocative comments (ie standard transexual hounding of people) shortly after this discussion had opened. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think Tamzin has also made a good point here. Hate is disruptive, and the "hounding" statement by Roxy is pretty clearly in that territory. As a comment it was directed both at an individual editor (Maddy), and the broader group of trans and non-binary editors, disparaging both for who they are. We shouldn't allow that anywhere, either on-wiki or off. So I agree with Tamzin and Nil Einne that we should indef siteblock, in addition to a broader topic ban. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support site ban with a minimum of 2 years before any appeal. Referring to something as "transexual hounding" is no more acceptable than referring to something as feminist hounding. Roxy the dog can (Personal attack removed), preferably for the rest of their life, but at least for 2 years. Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why two years? Why no appeals? I'm curious to the reasoning here because I don't see a lot of calls for bans/blocks with an altered period before appeals. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Because such an utterly disgusting comment deserves it. I'd say the same for someone who treats all black people, or other LGB, females/males, as showing a typical hounding pattern. NB I said feminist in my comment, I really should have said female or black or something of that sort since it's far closer to what Roxy actually said. In some ways I'd prefer if Roxy never came back, but since people can change, that isn't fair. But I'm thoroughly unconvinced that 6 months is enough to change such a disgusting mindset. From other comments here and I suspect this is because they only said something transphobic, I also feel there's too much of a risk they'll be let back in prematurely than if they'd said something racist or misogynic, or probably even homophobic if the wrong people happen to be the main ones to notice the appeal. So better to ward that off from the get go. (Or to put it a different way, there are a lot of cases where 6 months is really just something we don't modify since it isn't needed. It's clear there's no way in hell the person will be allowed back in in 6 months. Unfortunately while that should also be the case here, it isn't.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  With regard to "can fuck off from Wikipedia", also said to Roxy here: [139] as "you can fuck off", it seems incongruent with calling for refraining from insulting people. I hope we can arrive at a reasoned decision without such a high temperature. (Maybe such strong language arises from the indignant certainty that one is right, but that's just doing what Roxy also did.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  So let's get this straight: You, a self-professed wiki-friend of Roxy, not once publicly called them out for their behavior, at least not in the last month that I can see. But someone tells them to fuck off and that gets your hackles? --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you might want to get your facts straight. I could compile a list of diffs of me telling Roxy exactly that, but this isn't about me. (The reason that it hasn't come up in the past month is that Roxy spent much of that month in the hospital.) And I'm quite capable of keeping two thoughts in my mind at once: that "fuck off" is not a good way to discourage people from insulting one another, and that Roxy needs to be topic banned, as I endorse below (despite my friendship). The most important part of my comment above is that I hope that the community can come to a thoughtful resolution without overly escalating the discussion. If, instead, you think it's a good idea to get huffy with me just because I called out someone for saying "fuck off", that's on you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, editors should not tell each other to "fuck off". WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars for a reason; it doesn't have an escape clause for if someone really deserves it. This is not because everyone on Wikipedia for the last twenty years was just too naive to realize that there were contentious political issues, it's because they are obvious and fundamental principles of collaborative work. If we want to roll around in our own feces and call people nasty words, we have every other website in the world to do that on; Wikipedia is meant to accomplish something, which involves not having every surface of the website covered in puke and blood and shit. jp×g 20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Golbez, Telling someone to fuck off certainly raises my hackles. It is unacceptable behavior for any editor, especially an administrator. I believe you should apologize immediately or resign. — Jacona (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just to aide any closer, I'd also support a GENSEX topic ban and frankly a BLP one too as an obviously far less preferred option. Likewise any other lesser sanction. And obviously the 2 year minimum is not a prerequisite for my support for a community site ban Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Warning per Shibbolethink sequel to Special:Diff/1158676382, which I'd consider incivil hounding. But if we're just looking at just the comments that brought about this ANI report (Special:Diff/1158630150), then no action needed per EvergreenFir and Czello. This is probably better handled at WP:AE anyway, but I don't think Roxy meant to be transphobic in Special:Diff/1158630150, I think they were just being inattentive. This one comment doesn't sufficiently show a "long history of transphobic editing" to me; Roxy used a pretransition pronoun when directly referring to a pretransition name, which doesn't seem malicious, just clumsy. 〜 Askarion ✉ 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Changing to support a 3-month site ban and indefinite GENSEX topic ban in light of Roxy's later comments and conduct, though I still question if Roxy's initial comments warranted a trip to ANI in the first place. While this entire situation could have (and should have) been meted out on WP:AE or the talk page, Roxy's highly aggressive comments have no excuse (including calling someone a "worthless piece of shite liar"), and I'm not sure they have a future in this community if this continues. Their block log shows that past disciplinary action hasn't been enough to deter this behavior; perhaps it's time to look towards stronger actions. 〜 Askarion ✉ 22:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Roxy should abide to MOS:GENDERID whether they like it or not (I don't like it). However on the other end some people want to enforce MOS:GENDERID to every namespace(i.e. editors talking) rather than article's mainspace (recently an Arb corrected an accidential misuse of pronouns after editors brought up). Correct me if I made the wrong observation. ibicdlcod (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  The logic would be that it falls under WP:BLP which does apply in all namespaces. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Whoa, that makes sense. But I want to ask people familar with transgender topic: at what point of transitioning do the previous name/pronoun becomes unacceptable? ibicdlcod (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  The previous name is fine if and only if they were already notable, and should be relegated to a clarifying mention (ex: “bob smith (formerly Alice smith) is a…”). Pronouns are as far as I know and am concerned Are immediately and completely changed. Dronebogus (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  The guideline allows for using contemporaneous pronouns pre-transition if that's what the subject requests, but I'm not aware of Manning requesting that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  As EvergreenFir said, BLP applies to all name spaces so in the case of any living person which applies to all examples that have been discussed here, it's an automatic issue. But also Wikipedia isn't a place for idle talk. Discussion between editors should generally be focused on improving Wikipedia. We allow some off-topic discussion to help build the community here, but not at the expense of either living persons or the well being of the community. Editors who intentionally deadname or mis-pronoun people are being offensive to many of their fellow editors. And so even when it isn't at the expense of a living person, it is as the expense of the community wellbeing. They are free to do what they want in their personal lives, but when on Wikipedia they should not be intentionally offensive. If they want to be intentionally offensive, there's a whole wide internet out there for them to do so. Twitter in particular seems to be open to such nonsense nowadays. 15:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• It's baffling to me that someone already under a partial GENSEX topic ban – and especially someone who was formally warned by ArbCom to "remain collegial in editing and interacting with others" – would think it was okay to accuse another editor of "standard transexual hounding". Agreed with Sideswipe9th that at a minimum the TBAN should be upgraded to the full GENSEX topic area. DanCherek (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I support an indefinite block, per my comments and Beccaynr's diffs. DanCherek (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Maddy from Celeste initially wrote: This comment may seem relatively innocuous to the unfamiliar, but it is a part of Roxy the dog's long history of transphobic editing. I'm thinking that the theme of bias also plays a major role in Roxy the dog's other main preoccupation here — and which may have parallels — that of policing fringe topics, where bias is openly admitted and believed to be a positive force in protecting the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (see Old revision of User:Roxy the dog) against what Jimbo Wales referred to as "lunatic charlatans", and where the language used at times in the sub-culture ("pseudoscientist", "woo-monger", "loon", "lunatic charlatan", "fanboi", "troll", and the occasional "FU") is similarly lacking in sensitivity and decorum. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. is a good read. (Note the author, perhaps deliberately, decided not to include any modern geopolitical disputes, and the gender-themed conflict we are discussing, as areas where bias are legitimate) ibicdlcod (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  One might even say that being a transphobe means that one is being a bad skeptic.... XOR'easter (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It certainly means one is going against the consensus of relevant experts. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Upgrade partial topic ban to broadly construed. The claims which brought us here don't appear particularly actionable but the subsequent comment on their user page [140] is honestly shocking, I have a lot of respect for Roxy the Dog but perhaps thats because I primarily interact with them outside of this topic area... If it wasn't that respect and history I wouldn't be here supporting a topic ban, I'd be here supporting a community ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Upgrade topic ban. Roxy contributes a lot of good content, but it seems that their opinions are impacting their ability to edit collegially; we have had similar issues in the past with skeptic editors accusing trans editors of being unable to ever edit impartially and treating all such editors as a bloc, which is corrosive to dispute resolution and collaboration (beyond that, it's pointlessly antagonistic and uncivil.) If they cannot contribute in those areas effectively, then they should be forced to give it a wide berth. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Note: I have blocked Roxy the dog for 2 weeks for the "standard transexual hounding" comment (my explanation here). This is not intended as a conclusion to this thread, as further remedies may still be appropriate. – bradv 17:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Extend siteblock to indef. I have great respect for Bradv, and understand why he erred on the side of caution in a block when sanctions were already being discussed at AN/I, but come on...

  What Maddy is doing is standard transexual hounding of people they dont like.

• Would we tolerate that for any other community? "standard black hounding"? "standard female hounding"? "standard Jewish hounding"? This is not an editor expressing a heterodox opinion on gender. This is an editor singling out a colleague's transgender status to deligitimize their opinion. A temporary block will not remedy that. A topic-ban, which is about the encyclopedic topic of gender-related disputes, not interactions with editors who are trans or nonbinary, will not remedy that. We have a way to deal with editors who harass others on the basis of minority status: We indef them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• I was hoping that the original faux pas was based on ignorance rather than malice, but that quote shows that my hope has not materialised. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Check some of the links above, Roxy has actually in the past specifically stated they are a TERF. This isn't an ignorance thing. Canterbury Tail talk 18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah jeez upgrade my vote to a STRONG blockban Dronebogus (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Concur with Tamzin and Nil Einne. --Golbez (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Good lord. It hasn’t been three months since I imposed the partial GENSEX ban. I was trying to be tailored and reasonable to the immediate problem, but that clearly has been inadequate. I remember when I topic banned and blocked in March that Valereee said Roxy was lucky I got there first due to a pretty egregious topic ban. (Long story, I’m not a big fan of single admin indefs of long term editors, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion.) at a minimum, the topic ban needs to be expanded to the entire GENSEX area. A CBAN, I can see it, especially in the context of this being yet another example of treating other good faith editors poorly. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Indefinite block-ban Roxy has no problem with saying horrible things to other users (back in march they called someone a “worthless piece of shite liar”) and no problem using bigoted remarks to belittle and bully other users. Simple violation of WP:JERK. Dronebogus (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  • To clarify: as noted in a diff above, Roxy responded to my March 2023 template message and note with "You are a worthless piece of shite liar, who is officially banned from this page. I hope you choke on your lies" at 13:46, 21 March 2023, and at the Lia Thomas article, reverted my removal of disputed content with the edit summary: "Restore well sourced, removed by liar" at 13:47, 21 March 2023, and then added an edit-warring notice with the comment A liar is a despicable human being. on my user Talk page at 13:51, 21 March 2023. Beccaynr (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Crikey. Skepticism (and this may be an extension of that) may be a noble aim, but belligerence, militancy and vigilantism of any persuasion is toxic and should have no place in Wikipedia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinite block-ban' if continue after 2-week-block Roxy has been blocked for 2 weeks. If they continue I support an indef for harassment and personal attacks. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Indef siteblock, and if they return a broadly TBAN on GENSEX I read through the diffs and frankly they are just plain discriminatory, period. Transphobia isn't, and will never be, compliant with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. -- Prodraxis^talk_contribs 18:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Update siteblock to formal siteban now that I've seen their block log. -- Prodraxis^talk_contribs 20:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Indef If I'd gotten here first it would have been, I have no time for transphobic comments, racist comments, sexist comments, the list goes on. If this has been comments about race rather than a gensex topic they'd sure have been blocked, not sure why we'd treat such broad strokes exclusionary commentary any different no matter the group. And just remember, indefinite does not mean permanent (though maybe it should in some cases.) That way they 100% need to convince the community they will avoid areas, abide by any restrictions, commit to improving their behaviour etc before someone unblocks them. Some blocks should just go straight to indef and a justification is needed to regain editing rights. Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Indef Regardless of the fact that Wikipedia, like much social media, treats the transphobic (oh sorry, "gender critical") far more leniently than racists or homophobes - as you can see from some of the comments above - there is still, hopefully, a line that can't be crossed. And unfortunately (because RTD is a good editor in many areas) it has been here. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  And unfortunately (because RTD is a good editor in many areas) it has been here
  I agree the behavior here crosses a line. I think some sort of sanction is now appropriate. But given what you say here (that RTD is a good editor in many other areas), wouldn't a TBAN from GENSEX, broadly construed, be more appropriate than an indef? My impression was that sanctions should be narrowly tailored to prevent the disruption they seek to remedy. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Have you seen Roxy's block log? Their general attitude, personal attacks and harassment A) isn't new and B) isn't confined to just GENSEX topics. Canterbury Tail talk 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Part of the problem is they are now a poisoned well. You could say "If they don't edit trans stuff then no one will know they hate trans people," but I'm pretty sure that will also leak into anything else they do. Their presence on an article is a chilling effect on anyone who is or supports trans people. If we wouldn't say "just let the anti-semite edit articles that don't involve Jews", I'm not sure why the same treatment isn't relevant here. Their only option is a massive mea culpa and acceptance that they fucked up. --Golbez (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  The only way to stop them from being transphobic is to ban them from anything that mentions transgender people or topics AND interaction ban them from all transgender users. Dronebogus (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  What, do you want all transgender editors editors to have to state they're transgender on their user pages just so one editor, who has proven they can't stop harassing people no matter the area, can avoid them? No, you remove the people who are not capable of treating other editors like human beings. Canterbury Tail talk 19:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I was going to say something similar here. While in theory a one-way IBAN with all trans and non-binary editors would theoretically address some of the chilling effect, many editors don't want or otherwise feel a need to declare they are trans or non-binary on their userpages. It would be pretty much unworkable without requiring those editors to out themselves, which opens the door to all sorts of other harassment issues that many openly trans and non-binary editors face.

  At some point it becomes more expedient and efficient to just show the disruptive editor the door. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I was being hyperbolic and rhetorical Dronebogus (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  ANI is not a great place to be hyperbolic and rhetorical if the idea is to deescalate and lower the temperature of the discussion. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink: I just added a bit to WP:HATEDISRUPT on this topic. The important difference, to me, is between content disruption and disruption that also affects editors. If an editor is going from article to article pushing an anti-trans (or for that matter pro-trans) POV, but it isn't clearly meant to be hurtful, and the editor is otherwise productive, I personally have no problem with a mere TBAN. But we have to remember that most trans editors don't just edit about trans topics. 18+1⁄2 of the 22 articles I've written are outside the GENSEX topic area. If an editor complains about "standard transexual hounding", and then shows up at one of my 4+1⁄2 non-GENSEX GAs and aggressively starts some content dispute, do I have to then have that whole interaction wondering if I'm being targeted or not? To worry that if I piss them off they'll resort to the same rhetoric they got away with against another editor? What if I run for 'crat (lmao, thought experiment, bear with me) and they show up to oppose? Once they're known to be in favor of singling out trans editors, how do we assume good faith there? And not just me, of course—I've dealt with worse and survived—but any trans, nonbinary, or gender nonconforming editor (maybe even, as we saw with Athaenara, editors who state pronoun-indifference without labeling themself any which way). There's a chilling effect on a significant subset of our editors just to be around that.

  I always think it's very important to not let these GENSEX conduct threads turn into sanctioning anyone just for having "the wrong opinion" (unless it's a very wrong opinion, like one that advocates violence). I pride myself on an even-handed record on both content disputes, and disputes about editors' conduct in content disputes, in the GENSEX area. But when it's about editor-on-editor conduct, that's where I draw the line and say no, if we allow this, we make the encyclopedia an unsafe place for a lot of people to edit, and lose far more than we gain from one person's contributions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  But we have to remember that most trans editors don't just edit about trans topics. 18+1⁄2 of the 22 articles I've written are outside the GENSEX topic area. If an editor complains about "standard transexual hounding", and then shows up at one of my 4+1⁄2 non-GENSEX GAs and aggressively starts some content dispute, do I have to then have that whole interaction wondering if I'm being targeted or not?
  

  I would argue that a broadly construed GENSEX ban would also prevent RTD from commenting on the transgender-ness of any other editor in the same way that a TBAN about weather would prevent a user from discussing cloud-related userboxes on another user's talk page. If I'm wrong on that, I would be happy to be corrected, of course.

  And an IBAN from Maddy would be enough to prevent any further disruption from that dispute. I don't necessarily see a site ban as worthwhile here, as the pros of RTD's beneficial editing in other areas outweighs the costs of watching their behavior more closely in those other areas moving forward. That's just my assessment, though. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Indef I don't think anything good can come out from this editor at this stage. Editorkamran (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Upgrade TBAN to Gensex broadly construed, not just one page athletes, oppose indef. Before this ANI discussion goes full WP:DEFARGE, I want to focus on what will, and what will not, accomplish some good. First of all, I'll stipulate that I'm a wiki-friend of Roxy. On the other hand, I've repeatedly warned Roxy not to do this sort of thing, and yet, here we are once more. I also feel the need to point out that this incident started when Roxy was simply trying to defend something that SilkTork had done inadvertently and in good faith. On the other hand, it got worse from there. Also, Roxy has been dealing with some very real health problems lately. On the other hand, he is still responsible for what he posts. But a site ban is going too far. Roxy does contribute positively with respect to fringe topics (and there may be a bit of piling on happening from editors who don't like that). However, I see no way around the fact that gender is a topic where Roxy simply cannot control himself, and we are past the point of warnings on that. So, despite my personal friendship, I believe that he needs to be TBANed from gender and sexuality, broadly construed, and in all name spaces. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not directing this at anyone in particular. I linked just above to WP:DEFARGE. I hope that whoever determines the consensus here will evaluate this discussion with that essay in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish Purely as a point or order, while the topic ban calls out (the article) Lia Thomas, it’s only because it was the immediate flashpoint. It continues …” well as making any edits about transgender athletes, broadly construed.” which is considerably broader than a single page. Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, my mistake, now corrected. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  "and there may be a bit of piling on happening from editors who don't like that" is a assuming a lot of bad faith there, broseph. "On the other hand, I've repeatedly warned Roxy not to do this sort of thing, and yet, here we are once more." It sounds like you agree that there's no reforming them, since even a self-professed wiki-friend couldn't change their mind. "Also, Roxy has been dealing with some very real health problems lately." We've all got shit going on, mate. That doesn't excuse hating trans people. I stand by my earlier statement - if we wouldn't allow an anti-Semite to continue editing so long as they don't interact with any Jews, we shouldn't allow this to continue either. --Golbez (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're an administrator, and you just called me "broseph"? Well, what a lovely way to advocate for editors being kinder to one another. I was talking about serious health problems, scary ones. I get it that we all have, um, stuff going on. That's why I also said "he is still responsible for what he posts." You are making it sound like you think I'm arguing for no sanctions. But I said that "we are past the point of warnings" and a broader TBAN is needed. The TBAN will stop him from making any of the comments that are so troubling, and I agree that they are troubling. Treating Roxy simply as a transphobe is overly reductive. He is actually someone in the LGBTQ+ group of people, and there are complex issues going on with him and his views of at-birth versus chosen gender identities. People are complex. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  If he’s not a transphobe why does he act like one unrelentingly? Being severely ill is not an excuse, being gay or bisexual is not an excuse, being “complex” in ways we never see is not an excuse. You fuck up this many times, you’re out. Dronebogus (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Don't confuse an explanation with an excuse. They are two different things. Don't confuse treating him "simply as a transphobe is overly reductive" with "not a transphobe". And this isn't baseball, with three strikes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  So he is a transphobe. And he’s racked up a helluva lot more than three strikes. Dronebogus (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I can't resist linking to this: [141]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have some concerns that my comment here will just set off another barrage of WP:DEFARGE, but perhaps more thoughtful editors will take what I'm saying in a thoughtful way. There's already been a link above to an earlier AE thread. I'll link here to Roxy's statement within that thread: [142]. I'm not saying that it's perfect. And I'm not pretending that some editors won't use it as an opportunity to take some short snippet of it in isolation, in order to engage in performative indignation. And most importantly, I'm still saying Roxy should be broadly topic banned. But if you read it responsibly, you will see a complicated human being, one who is not reducible to an online caricature as a hater, and one who is, in fact, capable of recognizing that he made a mistake and feels badly about it. This is why I ask editors to recognize that people are complex. If you read it differently than I have, don't bother snarling at me, because that says more about you than it does about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  one who is, in fact, capable of recognizing that he made a mistake and feels badly about it I don't know about this Tryptofish. In the post block discussion on Roxy's talk page, you have given Roxy advice to this regard. That he should reconsider what he's written, understand the concerns raised here, and make a commitment to do better. Instead however it seems as though Roxy is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic by focusing on whether something relating to the block is a trope, trend, or something else.

  It is possible that Roxy will take action based on your second attempt at the same advice tonight, but if Roxy does not, then at least some of what I've quoted above seems not to be true. For this to be true, in one of his next comments, Roxy needs to recognise why what he said was an attack, not only on Maddy but the entire community of trans and non-binary editors, and make a commitment to be better. Otherwise he is either incapable or unwilling to recognise that he made a mistake. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously, I agree with you that he should follow my advice. Another editor pointed out below that some of that may be a defensive reaction to being criticized, so let's not be in too much of a rush to assume that he doesn't recognize his mistake. I'm also seeing an awful lot of comments below that make the jump to characterizing his comments as being "hateful", thus attributing a motivation that is not really what has been going on.

  Let me also suggest that editors look at Andrew Sullivan#Transgender issues, and recognize that, as I have said, real people do not reduce to caricatures. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t know what the point of this whole section is besides trying to hammer the vague-wave claim that “it’s not what you think”. Dronebogus (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Upgrade to GENSEX broadly construed, oppose site ban (for now) I think Roxy should be given one last chance, but these comments show that they need to be banned from GENSEX broadly construed. Any further comments like this should warrant a site ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Indef, Their block log showcases that a topic ban upgrade will probably not actually stop personal attacks and harassment. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef or CBAN, bumped into this editor on a fringe medical topic once (Feldenkrais method) regarding the reliability of an author (which eventually turned into the reliability of the source), I got stonewalled so hard I went to the wikiproject talk, asked the same question, answered promptly and with reasoning by someone else. Simply saying "the source [journal] is unreliable" (which was already a non-answer since I asked about the credibility of an author) without giving reasoning is just plain unhelpful, not all of us are altmed regulars and it surely would not hurt to just explain. In addition to the litany of god-awfully egregious violations of the civility on their talk page (just because it's true doesn't mean you should say it) and block log longer than the Great Wall of China I think the rope has been extended enough. This User really needs to reconsider whether their habit of snarky remarks is really suitable for the encyclopedia and for collaboration. Using pejoratives such as "despicable", especially when referring to other editors (implied or otherwise) is just simply not the way to go. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I took a look at the talk page, and it looks like you were hounding Roxy with pings, who was being curt in responses as a way of minimizing interaction. You really were splitting hairs over journal vs. author when Roxy was talking about the journal paper. That conversation comes across as WP:SEALIONING on your part. When someone is being pedantic as you were along with tone, you do have to expect that editors will be short. That interaction looked pretty benign and I didn't see any lashing out etc. from them that would really be evidence here. KoA (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing wrong with being curt, however, in retrospect the pings were indeed unnecessary but construing it as hounding I think is unfair. The rest of my point still stands, though. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support 3-month site ban for this. This is an attack on certain editors for an arbitrary characteristic, in this case being their status as transgender, that should not be tolerated in a place where anyone can edit. No demographic group should painted with that sort of brush. Now, I acknowledge it was just one comment, so I think a limited site ban is optimal. In my judgment, an indefinite full site ban is excessively punitive. Furthermore, I support an indefinite GENSEX topic ban for historical and persistent disruption in the GENSEX area along with a displayed POV that apparently interferes with Roxy's capacity to edit the area productively and without bias. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  You should check Roxy’s block log and reconsider the length Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Part of my thought process is I've seen a lot of editors here (who I trust) say Roxy is productive outside of GENSEX areas. Working under that assumption, I concluded we need to get Roxy's attention (with a time-limited site ban) while allowing her him to go back to productive editing in areas outside of GENSEX. I think that's a reasonable course of action in this case. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I thought roxy went by male pronouns? Dronebogus (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll correct it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 22:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't like any situation where we lose an active contributor, but it's behavior like this which, if tolerated, discourages other editors and creates an environment prone to personal attacks against specific groups, in this case transgender people. At some point, users who engage in personal attacks hit a threshold where the contributors they push away or otherwise discourage outweigh their own contributions to the project. We are evidently far beyond that point, and I support an indef/CBAN. Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 22:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

• Strong support for broadening TBAN, support for Indef. I was pretty deep into looking into the details of the report here, and refamiliarizing myself with the previous discussions where sanctions were proposed, and was generally leaning towards a warning approach before I saw the "standard transexual hounding of people they don't like" comment, which, frankly, recontextualizes everything else. If I were to judge Roxy's conduct in this particular area absent this comment, it would be substantially more difficult to interpret the balance of the scales. Some of the very discussions the OP and others wished us to review for context here were closed as content disputes that had inappropriately been brought to behavioural spaces. Others included a clear community consensus of biased or disruptive activity on some articles connected with trans issues. Looking at particular behaviour on individual talk pages also paints a complex picture. On several of these articles, activity by Roxy that has been intimated as biased or transphobic does not necessarily clear that hurdle for me: on Talk:Quentin Crisp, for example, I actually think Roxy's position is the correct one under GENDERID, as well as in terms of respect for self-determination among BLP subjects and trans individuals generally. On the other hand, while contributions on other talk pages didn't so much involve big brightline issues (that I saw in the threads I reviewed anyway), there are some indications of a pattern of bias against trans individuals that have become culture war targets.
  As such, had I shared my perspective here much earlier in the thread, I probably would have focused on whether and to what extent to expand the TBAN. But Roxy's scattershot invective against all trans individuals fundamentally changes the calculus for me. That comment is nothing short of spiteful generalization against a massive class of individuals who collectively have nothing in common other than their belonging to that class of people with gender identities differing from those assigned to them. In short, this is bigotry. Frankly, Roxy let them mask slip, and even if we were able to ignore this pretty blatant display of hatespeech in itself (and I don't think we should, by any means: this should validate a longterm block all on its own), it also puts a new light on all the previous borderline or outright disruption and battleground attitudes elsewhere in this topic area. Nor indeed is this the only time (or the only area) in which Roxy's compliance with basic behavioural policies has been found to fall short by the community. This is an editor with an extensive block log, much of it involving personal attacks, harrassment, and other violations of WP:CIV. They have been brought to ANX and AE no small number of times along the same grounds, and been warned about their acerbic or outright aggressive comments on a non-trivial number of occasions. Clearly due warning was given here, and embraced (if at all) in a highly selective fashion.
  So, I have to agree that "enough is enough" is the appropriate call here: I don't think we should let the boiling frog effect blind us to just how problematic the invocation of the "frothing at the mouth trans person" trope is, in a community that is meant to be open and inviting to all editors of good faith, with rules based on a rational analytical framework. Therefore, I cannot see any alternative to an indef. I support the TBAN first and foremost because I think it is important it be implemented parallel to, and irrespective of, an indef; in the unlikely event that Roxy is not indeffed (or the probably unlikely in the short term, but still quite possible event that they are given a second chance down the line), the TBAN should be implemented as a secondary restrain on Roxy ever contributing to areas where they have evidenced a clear inability to act with neutrality and proper perspective. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support upgrading t-ban to GENSEX broadly construed, oppose block/c-ban – The "standard transexual hounding" comment crosses a line which makes it clear that a full GENSEX t-ban is needed. However, my impression is that this comment, made after this ANI report was initiated (with rather weak evidence), results from a specific frustration rather than from systemic hate. I believe that Roxy may be frustrated over having a different opinion on gender issues than most other editors do around here, and over feeling targeted for that (as in this ANI), rather than harboring a genuine hate towards transsexual people.
  This sets the current issue apart from Roxy's chronic problems with incivility, where ironically Roxy is usually on the majority-opinion side, and it's their victims who get the rough treatment for (sometimes just seemingly) having the 'wrong' opinion. It also sets this issue apart from cases where a t-ban may not be sufficient to contain the hate, because hate often spreads over several topics, and because even if it is limited to one topic strong hate will always disrupt editorial processes. I don't believe such hate is present here.
  All that said, it is merely my impression, and I could be wrong. I realize there's a royal dose of AGF here, but I do think that is warranted when it comes to sensitive topics. I do hope with Bradv here that Roxy, preferably after some reflection, make an effort to explain themselves in this ANI report. I would like some affirmation that indeed no civility problems –none at all– will occur after the t-ban is enacted and they are unblocked. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  "results from a specific frustration rather than from systemic hate." If Roxy had said "standard Jewish hounding," would you be so quick to discard it as a mere specific frustration? --Golbez (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Transphobia, you see, is just a difference of opinion on the value of other humans, not hatred. (Sarcasm) Dronebogus (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  This has been discussed a bit above by KoA below and by KoA and Tamzin above. I'm reading this as perhaps meant to signify "standard trans-issues hounding". In other contexts "standard Jewish hounding" or "standard British hounding" or "standard skeptic hounding" might be meant to signify, coming from a frustrated and unduly generalizing editor, 'hounding by editors on Jewish topics', 'hounding by editors on British topics', 'hounding by editors on skeptic topics'. All of these would be pretty bad, and betraying a certain prejudice to say the very least, but they would not necessarily qualify as hate speech. They may, in context, be reactions to a perceived pigeonholing of editors with unpopular views.

  And yes, I choose to AGF in presuming that an unpopular view lies at the basis of this, rather than hatred. Humans have a natural tendency to brush off views they disagree with as either malice or lunacy. The narrow-mindedness that often results from this may be acceptable and even desirable in certain contexts, but is completely out of place on an encyclopedic project like Wikipedia. Any intellectual enterprise needs a window of discourse that is broader than the Overton window, not narrower. We as WP editors need to be far more tolerant of people with different views, including views that we perceive as extreme, than we would be on any other medium. Sure, there are limits to that, and I very much respect and understand the view of others here that these limits have been crossed in this case, it's just that my personal preference would be to stretch AGF a bit more, both in this case and cases similar to it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you spend any time in WP:PIA you will regularly encounter people that use "Zionist" as an epithet for "Jew". Most recently (with no action) at ANI: [143]

  It's always somewhat annoying to see someone bring up antisemitism like anything remotely similar of a standard is being applied w.r.t. that form of bigotry. One wonders where all this outrage is at ANI threads where someone actually complains about other editors being Jewish, rather than incorrect pronoun usage. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Because some of us are limited to 24 hours in a day and don't see everything on ANI. But, "most recently" is 9 months ago? I was about to block on sight for what I read but finding out about it nine months later really puts a damper on that. It would also really be nice if you didn't disregard the terror directed at trans people as simply "incorrect pronoun usage," especially since that's not even what this section is about. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  When I first read the comment, I understood "However, my impression is that this comment, made after this ANI report was initiated (with rather weak evidence), results from a specific frustration rather than from systemic hate" to be refering to frustration over finding that there was an ANI complaint. It's not unusual for editors to initially react with feeling upset upon learning that they have been taken to ANI. Taking the comment as a whole in that light, I find it reasonable. The performative outrage expressed by some editors in response, not so much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've been upset by being taken to ANI but I somehow didn't use that opportunity to disgustingly insult a portion of the audience. Performative outrage? Here's a phrase you've learned well: (Personal attack removed) --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Tryptofish I understand and respect the desire to want to protect your friend. But Roxy has been given ample opportunity to explain exactly what he meant by the hounding comment, and apologise for it, and has so far refused to do either. I don't think it is fair to anyone, least of all Roxy, to describe the reaction to the comment as preformative outrage. A plain reading of the words is that it is a pretty egregious attack that was directed to both an individual (Maddy) and an entire cohort (trans and non-binary) of editors. I would strongly urge you to strike that part of your reply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sideswipe, then let me be clear: what I was describing as performative outrage are the comments that were directed at Apaugasma. I should have said that more clearly. But there are some comments above that seem to imply that Apaugasma condones bigotry. That's not appropriate.

  And I stand by that. Golbez, I said to you earlier that we should focus the discussion on Roxy, and not one another, and that we should do so civily and thoughtfully. However, you have instead doubled down, and now spread the message of inclusiveness by telling me to fuck off. [rest of this post redacted by Floq; I *think* per policy but maybe per IAR. I hope and suspect Tryptofish is, with hindsight, OK with this. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Golbez: I think it's disingenuous that there's multiple comments here claiming that antisemitism isn't tolerated on Wikipedia compared to transphobia. That's just not true. From my understanding, conduct in WP:GENSEX is enforced to the point where people will start ANI threads like this one based on using "he" instead of "she" on a user talk page. In contrast, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland closed last month after an academic paper discussed "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" was released, and the title tells you all you have to know about what has been tolerated w.r.t. antisemitism onwiki. I would consider it "performative outrage" to tell an editor who actually contributed evidence to that ArbCom case [144] to fuck off, and to claim that others might tolerate antisemitism (e.g. you wikilinked Kristallnacht below as an example of where the kind of TERFy rhetoric leads). If you're not going to wade into the exciting shitshow that is Holocaust history on Wikipedia (and I think you should, because one point I took away from the case is that there's a shortage of admins willing to deal with the drama), you shouldn't criticize people for hypothetically not taking a strong stand against antisemitism/hypocrisy with respect to that area of bigotry. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry that I'm not involved in 100% of discussions on Wikipedia, I'll be sure to invent a 96 hour day so I can slot into your favored topics. I never said people might tolerate antisemitism, in fact quite the opposite, but sure, read whatever you want into it. I think we're done here. --Golbez (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Since this has come up in the replies above: I did not take any reaction to my comments here as implying that I condone bigotry, but to clear any doubt I should perhaps be explicit. I am a male-bodied person who casually and regularly wears skirts and dresses, as well as on occasion make-up, hairpins and other 'female' regalia. I get stared at on the streets, occasionally harassed. I do not condone bigotry of any kind, but when it comes to trans issues I'm rather kinda on the receiving end of it (I say 'kinda' because I'm a 'transdresser' rather than a transsexual, and though I doubt whether actual bigots care much for such differences, there is a big gap in experience because I always have the option to 'cisdress' in situations where I expect to be uncomfortable).

  My own views on gender issues are complex, and having been a feminist for +25 years I know from experience that there are many different feminists out there, each with their own subtly different views. I disagree with most . However, I've always had the biggest problem with radical feminism, which in my view has always flirted with bigotry, even though that has perhaps only become really clear to many since the widespread adoption of trans issues in the fourth wave. On the other hand, I do very much respect radical feminists, and I do understand why trans issues may occasionally present a problem from their point of view.

  In particular, even though I strongly disagree with those radical feminists who think that trans issues have no place in feminism, I believe it's very problematic to assume that they are bigotted simply for holding that specific view. I'm rather concerned that Roxy's self-identification as a 'TERF' is taken as straightforward evidence of bigotry. As encyclopedists I think we have a duty to be more nuanced, and to reject the polarized views which are so widespread elsewhere on the internet. This is in line with my wider views on Wikipedia, which I firmly believe should be more conservative than its average editor, including my rather progressive anarcha-feminist self . ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support site ban I have seen this editor snarling at editors around the project and at DYK. The arbcom formal warning regarding civility was ignored and the editor is pushing other limits. If the editor is successful getting a site ban lifted they should be subject to an upgraded t-ban GENSEX broadly construed. Lightburst (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, oppose CBAN or siteban or whatever it's called as that's not fixing the problem, it's vindictive punishment. It's like returning hate with hate. Let's try to show some love to all, not just those we agree with. Jacona (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Tolerance paradox— transphobia is not a difference of opinion, it’s unacceptable behavior. “Love” is not fixing anything here. Also it’s hardly vindictive, it’s preventative after years of evidence that wrist-slapping is ineffective. Dronebogus (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Dronebogus, I guess we have come to a difference of opinion then. Can you find it within your heart to accept that others see it differently? — Jacona (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I’m not intellectually incapable of understanding that other individuals have different opinions. So yes, I guess. Dronebogus (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  to accept that others see it differently? is such an intellectually dishonest comment. "We agree to see things differently" applies to pineapple on pizza or being a Mets fan rather than the Yankees. it doesn't apply to tranpohbia. Zaathras (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Jacona, here's solution for you: first we'll siteban Roxy to prevent disruption, then you'll show him some love, prefereably off-site. Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 04:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Arado Ar 196, Thanks for the suggestion. How very kind of you. — Jacona (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Jacona, sure thing, you're welcome!/gen Comrade a!rado🇷🇺 (C🪆T) 11:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Can you find it within your heart to accept that others see it differently?

  No. As others said, this is not merely a difference of opinion, and we would not tolerate a difference of opinion on race. RtD has made it very clear that he is going to insult and harass anyone who is trans or supports trans rights. That is unacceptable, and incompatible with Wikipedia's values. I will never accept such behavior, and neither should anyone else. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Blocking someone for continued incivility after years of incivility is not "returning hate with hate", it's preventative conduct enforcement. Additionally, "show[ing] some love" to people who harass and insult other contributors does nothing but alienate the victims of their attacks, and is disruptive to the project. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef/siteban largely per the editor's extensive history of edit warring and personal attacks. IMO the recent personal attack is bad enough for an indef in its own right, but Roxy the dog's extensive block log leaves little doubt that they've been unable or unwilling to correct course despite a dozen or so blocks and an ArbCom warning. I think it's particularly noteworthy that, although their conduct in the GENSEX topic area has certainly been subpar, there has also been plenty of problematic conduct unrelated to GENSEX. If the siteban doesn't pass, I support a full GENSEX topic ban, broadly construed. — SamX [talk · contribs] 00:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Roxy has been a useful editor in many articles, but sadly does not get the point that some opinions are unwelcome at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban. Calling this ANI thread transexual hounding? You must be kidding me if you think anything but a site ban is the way to go here. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  To anybody opposing sanctions: I'm sorry, but saying "I'm a TERF" is blatant transphobia. We desysopped and blocked Athaenara for similar comments... and she was an admin. You know how admins get free passes? If Athaenara got desysopped and indeffed, then Roxy should also be indeffed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site ban per others. I do not think that transphobic comments have a place here, in the spirit of ridding the project of other undesirables. You cannot have editors here who are at their core showing prejudice and hatred towards others. Zaathras (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to GENSEX, oppose indef per Trytofish and Apaugasma. Roxy just isn't a fit for this topic, and I've faceplamed quite a few times seeing times when they clearly should have just voluntarily walked away. It sounds like they are just too close to this topic IRL, which I wasn't aware of, but also explains why they had trouble walking away. That's a clear cut case for a topic ban to get them back to working in other areas where they are productive, like fringe/medical topics. A site ban is pretty premature though, in part because I'm concerned about the pile on effect going on that's generating more heat than light that's making it hard to really sort things out, nor would it be preventative when the key problem area is transgender topics.

I am concerned about their comments being misrepresented though in many of the indef !votes. The standard transexual hounding comment pretty clearly comes across as describing WP:SEALIONING behavior in context, which is perfectly fine to address as long as it's not an aspersion (haven't been able to dig into the interaction history much yet) as Shibbolethink mentioned near the start. It's not the most precise phrasing, but it would be like me saying "standard disability hounding" for a recent case I saw. There, someone was being disruptive, warned for it, and then they claimed they were being discriminated against for their disability. Instead, they were interjecting their disability (a neurologic disorder) and sealioning about it. Something like that isn't atypical, so that's why Roxy's comment comes across as sealioning rather than jumping to thinking they're talking about all trans people.

I'm not seeing evidence presented that would clearly qualify for a site ban though. The initial diff had no significant issues in context where it seems like Roxy is addressing issues when a person is known well before and after their transition. Tackling nuance there with Roxy's bluntness though? Not a good idea (no, a really horrid idea with all their red flags already to step back), especially in a tense topic. If I'm reading things right though, this is the most recent issue in the initial filing? Everything else is from old diffs that were already addressed at AE, etc. It seems pretty clear a full ban/indef would violate WP:PREVENTATIVE, but a full topic ban would fit very sqaurely there. KoA (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment In addition to above oppose !votes, reading their talk page it seems they have a poor grasp of the English language (Actually, I just looked up Trope (literature) and Trope (disambiguation) and the word Trope clearly doesn't mean what I thought it meant. It is a bit sloppy, but perhaps we could settle on the word trend instead?). Ban them, and allow them to return only when they are capable of expressing themself and understand others. ibicdlcod (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about it, Roxy might be from a community that despies Western identity politics. It's like some time ago a user was brought to ANI for borderline Armenian genocide denial, and they defended themself by stating they are a Turk and are just following 80% of their compatriots. I don't know their eventual fate. Support TBAN, Neutral on indef (apparently Roxy is a TERF, making this conjecture useless) ibicdlcod (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban to GENSEX, oppose indef This editor has clearly crossed the line in this topic area, and needs a very long time out. But this editor is an iconoclast who has interesting and provocative things to say, and has made useful and incisive observations about other matters while this conversation has been going on. Many's the time that I wished that this editor would dial it back, but many other times, I found a useful kernel of truth buried in their unique style of expression. I totally understand the sentiments of editors who are saying "enough is enough already" but I recommend WP:One last chance. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know, Cullen, I'm generally inclined to extend wp:rope whenever we can, but here's the problem I run into with that here: I have no good response to any of the comments above noting that if we changed the operative labels here (if the comment in question was "typical Irish troublemaking" or "typical jewish conspiring" or "typical black exaggeration") we would not be seeing anything like the current amount or manner of equivocation about what to do here. And I feel that anything short of consistency with what our response would be in those situations for "typical transexual hounding" is going to send a message to every trans editor on this project as to just how much we value them on this project and are prepared to make it welcoming to them. A message I just don't want to be a part of sending. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the examples. I was trying to say that earlier but simply replacing transexual with black or female doesn't work so well. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  One last chance? Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 14:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban to GENSEX, oppose indef Roxy is a useful contributor who needs to be kept away from problems, not punished. Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• support indef, I personally believe an editor who categorises other users in this way will have a hard time contributing constructively in other topic areas as well, especially when encountering other editors subject to their prejudice in such a topic area. However, I am willing to extend the rope needed to prove my theory for now._{Edit, based on other comments here, that rope has long since been tied into a know, so I'm retracting this suggestion} However, if it does become a TBAN I suggest that further hostility towards our trans editors, broadly construed, should also lead to an immediate indef. I strongly suggests this editor strictly follows WP:COAL to avoid this fate going forwards. --Licks-rocks (talk)
• support indef per "standard transexual hounding of people they dont like" comment. The point of an indef, rather than a fixed term, is that it doesn't suddenly become all right after 2 months or that we hold out hope this was a one off and a wee holiday will fix things. As others have noted, this is a pattern of behaviour rooted in clearly stated beliefs. Not going to change baring some Road to Damascus thing. While it does make a difference that someone is a longterm useful editor rather than some random newbie who turns up to hate, this is a clear "line crossing" incident, and the attempts to keep a "useful" editor by suggesting topic bans seem desperate and frankly embarrassing. -- Colin°^Talk 09:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• I am pretty involved with Roxy so I won't be making a bolded !vote, as I think editors without a history with someone (as adversaries or friends) are the best to determine if sanctions are necessary. That said, I'm less than impressed by the needs to be kept away from problems, isn't fit for this topic, vindictive punishment, and similar comments. Roxy has a long history of incivility and editing issues that are not confined to gensex topics, but rather any topic that they edit. This behavior has been chronic, and has not changed. They have had a half a dozen or so blocks for personal attacks before this point, a block for BLP violations, and a few blocks for edit warring. The vast majority of these blocks were not placed for any behavior in gensex. Roxy was also warned by arbcom for their behavior. Despite this, Roxy continues the same behavior. Is there actually a real belief that the problem is the topic area, or that with just one more chance their behavior will change?
  Moving on to the recent comments, a lot is being made of the standard transexual hounding which, as has been explained, is pretty bad. I'm even more concerned with I'm not sure I want to take part in a discussion on this subject on the talk page though, as without question I am a TERF. This wasn't a comment made in jest, and is explicitly admitting to bigotry. Roxy later went on to say I am aware of my bias here in the same way I am aware of my bias in ALT_MED. Yet, despite that self-declared bigotry, the warnings, and the blocks, Roxy continued to get involved in the topic area. Knowing their bias, after warnings about and a block for their editing, they edit warred on the same article they were blocked for violating BLP on. This edit warring included more personal attacks, showing that they attacks come when they're in a disagreement, not because of any particular topic. It's also another clear demonstration that blocks and warnings are ineffective.
  So we're looking at an editor with a years long history of personal attacks, incivility, and edit warring across multiple topics that doesn't adjust their behavior based on warnings or blocks, who has admitted to bigotry and used bigoted language. This isn't a isn't fit for this topic situation. It's not that they need to be kept away from problems. Their editing is the problem. It is not vindictive punishment to indef an editor that has had years of warnings and blocks and has not changed their behavior, and has recently made bigoted attacks against an entire group of people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW while I'm very uncomfortable with bigots editing I also do feel there is a risk of the infamous slippery slope once we start banning or blocking simply for self-admitted bigotry. There is the fact they brought it up on wiki, as I said above if you want to talk such stuff elsewhere well whatever but when you bring it here we have to consider the harm that comes to the community when we allow people to say it here. But even with that I'm not certain I'd support a site ban simply for self admitting bigotry. I'm always in two minds about NONAZIS for the same reason and have never been particularly supportive of it. For me the transexual hounding thing is far worse since you're attacking others in a bigoted way. So it's no longer simply a case of being a bigot but you've demonstrated you will make vile attacks because of it. While this case isn't quite as bad as the other infamous one during an RfA, it isn't that far off IMO. (Likewise if there is any indication from the editor they intend to try and push their bigot views in articles.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  One of my concerns with WP:NOTTHISPERSON or WP:NOTTHATPERSON is always the fact that we move away from prosecuting instances of incivility or misbehavior to instead prosecuting thoughtcrime, seeking to block or censure those who hold opinions that fall outside the Overton window whether or not it has any impact on their edits. This is probably why there is a divide on how people feel about Roxy the dog. I'm generally uncomfortable with deciding to block people who self-admit to having certain opinions, because to me it goes against the idea that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it reinforces cliquish group behaviors on Wikipedia, which at certain times may become toxic. But in the case of Roxy, it's pretty clear there is at least a history of belligerent and highly inappropriate interactions with other editors - a history that perhaps Wikipedia collectively has overlooked as time has gone on due to also being an excellent long-time contributor. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne and WaltCip: The two-mindedness y'all describe is why I wrote WP:HATEDISRUPTS a while ago to address the shortcomings of NONAZIS etc. There's a subtle but very important difference between "We'll block you if you're an X" and "We'll block you if you let on that you're an X", and I felt that NONAZIS dangerously conflated the two. We shouldn't sanction people for being transphobes; we should sanction them for acting transphobically, because acting transphobic is disruptive. HATEDISRUPTS argues that it's blockable to self-out as a bigot, but I'm actually not sure whether I think "I'm a TERF" qualifies as that. As Colin says, the word means a lot of things, and for better or for worse some of those things are within the Overton window. To the extent that it's relevant here, I think it's more relevant in establishing that the offensive things said weren't accidental. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Was that essay deleted or is that a typo? Appears to be a redlink to me. — Czello ^(music) 15:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, and having read over your essay WP:HATEDISRUPT, I agree with most of its principles. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a bit uncomfortable about using the word "bigot" (which in normal circumstances would be a personal attack) because someone has claimed to be a TERF (no problem with using the word because of their other remark, though). TERF is a rather technical jargon that has become a term of abuse that few now are willing to own and prefer something like "gender critical" instead. We need to remember that recent YouGov polls in the UK have only 38% think trans women should be considered both socially and legally women. So when you've got essentially two-thirds of my country with beliefs that could be described as gender critical or TERF-aligned, then throwing the "bigot" word around is going to hit a lot of targets. I've interacted with editors who seem very much careful not to associate themselves with a label, for fear that alone will be used against them, when their statements and edits "out" them quite obviously. WP:NONAZIS is often cited, though that is pretty much exclusively on racism with only a brief "other inappropriate discriminatory groups" tagged onto it. The community obviously should discuss when "discriminatory" crosses that line, but it is a hard case to argue that gender critical beliefs have crossed that line, when most of the UK, where I live, are on the "wrong" side of it. -- Colin°^Talk 13:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Colin: You hit the nail right on the head. We as a community shouldn't try to superimpose West Coast U.S. liberal viewpoints as a barrier to entry for editors, because that's not the purpose of Wikipedia per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We should call out those individual actions which are disruptive and hurtful, but unless that viewpoint is so extreme as to deserve universal censure (this is why Godwin's Law is so useful), we cannot and should not block for status reasons. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Remember a decade ago when gay marriage wasn't legal, or when interracial marriages were illegal? Or maybe when people of certain backgrounds couldn't own land? Or women couldn't vote? Popular opinion isn't the measure of when something is right or wrong.

  I'm also not suggesting the issue is that Roxy said they were a TERF, what I'm saying is that if you admit to bigotry, admit to bias, get warned and blocked because of it, then continue editing in that topic area without adjusting the behavior it is an issue. I didn't sign onto the NONAZIS page because if someone has shitty or bigoted views and it doesn't leak into their editing I don't really care, but when someone admits to something like that and edits in the topic with their bias clearly showing, it is a problem. Combined with their history of general incivility and not changing their behavior, why would I have any reason to believe their behavior would improve now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. It would be a valid discussion on "prosecuting thoughtcrime" if we were banning editors who we merely suspected of holding unsavoury views, but I don't think that the community is anywhere near doing that and in any case that's not what's happening here. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Remember a decade ago when gay marriage wasn't legal? To extend on this, if we're measuring views based on popularity among English speakers, the four countries with the most English speakers after the USA [145] are India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and the Philippines. None of those countries have legal gay marriage, and Pakistan/Nigeria can punish same sex activities with death. The logical extension of the claim that "transphobia is fine because 38% of the UK agrees it is" would be that advocating against gay marriage or the living status of gay people is OK as well given the popularity of said views in countries with far more English speakers than the UK. And I'm pretty sure WP:NONAZIS covers calling for the death of gay people onwiki, so I don't think popularity in one country is a good way of demarcating the policy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Personal attacks are personal attacks irrespective of the target group's political status. We're at ANI discussing this not because Roxy holds these ideas, but because those ideas manifested in the form of broad-stroke personal attacks, which are inherently disruptive to the project. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 14:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's not just that they said they were a TERF. It is that they said they were a TERF, and then edited as they did. They didn't end up blocked for BLP violations and topic banned because of their good behavior in the gensex topic. They said they were bigoted and then painted all trans people with a broad brush. To beat the examples given above a bit further into the ground, if someone had said "I'm pro-civil rights, but excluding Jews" and then edit warred and made BLP violations on articles of Jewish people, then when called on it said "typical Jewish tricks," we wouldn't be having this conversation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, them saying that they were a TERF is, according to you, "explicitly admitting to bigotry". And I'm not sure how one comes back, relationship-wise, from calling someone a bigot. I mean, a dictionary definition is "a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.". But I stuck my comment under yours and WaltClippers when it also applies to a couple of those further down, who seem convinced that admitting to being a TERF is sufficient for an indef.

  The problem I have is that right now, in the UK, two thirds of the population don't think gender critical beliefs are "unreasonable". In fact they call them "common sense" and "biological facts" and have not only the backing of the current government but also His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. I don't think your "I'm pro-civil rights, but excluding Jews" example is equivalent (in the UK anyway) to being a TERF/gender-critical. (They would argue that a trans woman is fully entitled to all the civil rights of the biological man that they actually are, so there's no discrimination at all). If someone made the claim in your example, I don't think we'd be hanging around waiting to see what bad edits they make. Your "typical Jewish tricks" example is better aligned with the "standard transexual hounding of people they don't like" comment and seems to me to be a clear line crossed.

  I think we both agree that their beliefs explain their behaviour and their behaviour is what got them here. I just wanted to say really that those beliefs alone are not I think sufficient at this point in time (even if I strongly disagree with them). -- Colin°^Talk 15:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  "of the biological man that they actually are" you just couldn't resist, wow. Also funny how you ignore the existence of transmen but sure go off. Just because 2/3 of terf island is wrong doesn't mean we have to coddle them for it. --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Can I just say that Roxy is probably British based on their dialect? Dronebogus (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Colin, transphobic rhetoric like “trans women are actually biological men” is the last way to defend an editor accused of transphobia. Dronebogus (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know which part of "They would argue that...." you are trying to associate with me, but I suggest you read what I wrote again. Oh, and based on comments elsewhere, I suggest Dronebogus take this page off your watchlist and go do something else. Golbez, perhaps you missed my indef block vote. I'm not coddling anyone. -- Colin°^Talk 17:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hrm. Fine. I can assume good faith. But surely you can see how that statement, without being attributed to someone else, comes across as your own words. Especially the use of the phrase "they actually are", we have no way of knowing if that was your words or you paraphrasing someone else. That being the situation, as you say, then I apologize for piling on. --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for the apology. I did "attribute[] to someone else", that's what "They would argue that..." means. That I am paraphrasing what someone else would argue. Do you really think any editor with half a clue would wade into a GENSEX AN/I dispute and openly say in their own words "trans women are actually biological men". It isn't just AGF you need but a degree of common sense. -- Colin°^Talk 19:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Do you really think any editor with half a clue would wade into a GENSEX AN/I dispute and openly say in their own words "trans women are actually biological men"." Yes? Have you been on the internet? --Golbez (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wrt your "Popular opinion isn't the measure of when something is right or wrong." I'm not saying it is. All those things are wrong and were wrong then, but we do have the benefit of hindsight. Not everything that bright people believe turns out to be a good idea. A hundred years ago lots of really bright people thought eugenics was a super idea. Someone linked to Overton window. Wikipedia's views on what is acceptable are community-led and so are at the mercy of what the community believe today. -- Colin°^Talk 15:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, we have the benefit of hindsight, which is why we know exactly where the kind of TERFy rhetoric leads. --Golbez (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to note the self-awareness and contrition shown in Roxy's reply here, which is exactly what we hope to see in a situation like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• support indef. roxy has literally called themselves a terf - a literal transphobe. the fact that people are even opposing an indef block boggles me. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef. I think the comments that focus on the idea that a block is "punishing" Roxy have it the wrong way round. The priority is the other editors on the project, especially those who are transgender or non-binary. There is no argument for Wikipedia accommodating an openly transphobic editor. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Roxy has asked that I copy the following explanation here (context: User talk:Roxy the dog#Blocked):

  Clearly the community has decided that I am unsuitable to be making any contributions in the Gensex area of the project. I cannot but accept this. I note that I haven't done so since my much more narrowly constructed Topic Ban.

  My comment to Maddy on Silktork's talk page bears examining as ST just didn't deadname her. Her pre and post transition names are well known and in her article here, in the first sentence.

  Perhaps an examination of the reason I was at the Silktork page may bring some enlightenment. See User talk:CompromisingSuggestion That admittedly minor example and the vast majority of my 30k odd contributions over many years surely speak in mitigation. I have been and would like to continue be a positive contributer to the project. Roxy the dog 07:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  – bradv 12:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  If the 30k odd contributions over many years surely speak in mitigation, then this proceeding should also take note of the broader picture of Roxy the dog's interaction over those same years, not just the most recent comments. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do not understand the second paragraph. A deadname is still a deadname even if it is publicly known. XOR'easter (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect the verb "deadname" may have been conflated there with the verb "out" (verb), as in thinking it means "expose the prior name" rather than "use the prior name", so you can't have deadnamed if the prior name was already public knowledge. This is of course not how the word is defined in the Wikipedia article about it, nor in the dictionaries I've seen by Googling "define deadname". – .Raven  .talk 18:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef. Can't not comment at this point. Mainly per Colin. Even if Roxy isn't hateful and transphobic, the language (specifically the hounding comment) being used is, and the block would be preventative at this point for the members of our community being hurt. Scribolt (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• No action needed - This was pointing out the obvious, This was a personal attack and should be struck, I'm not seeing anything that warrants blocking. –Davey2010^Talk 12:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Did you READ Rox’s block log? Or his “I am a TERF” comment? Do you even care how horribly bigoted “standard transsexual hounding” even sounds? Dronebogus (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not bothered about the terf comment, And no I don't care although as I said it should be struck for being a PA. –Davey2010^Talk 12:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh for goodness sakes, stop going after !votes that oppose your position. As one who myself supports indeffing, you've done it multiple times and it's getting aggravating. I think anyone who has come to this discussion can be assumed to have read most of the salient points without you having to keep hitting on them. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes Dronebogus please stop your bludgeoning and persistent responses to everything on ANI. You've been blocked from ANI previously for doing exactly this and I've noticed the last month or so you're doing it again, and jumping onto people's talk pages to wind them up as well. I know this isn't about you, but it comes across as you're just running around looking for the next controversy to get involved in. Please stop it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef - Not just for this incident, but a very, very, very long-running pattern of incivility and belligerency towards other editors. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN or indef. As well as the thoroughly-discussed "standard transsexual hounding" comment (which RtD seems to have double down on on their talkpage), I am unimpressed by their doubling down on the claim that "ST just didn't deadname [Manning]" here: as XOR'easter points out above, whether a name is publicly known or not has nothing to do with whether or not it is a deadname. Equally I am unimpressed by their need to shoehorn the claim that they are "axiomatically correct" about trans issues into a talkpage discussion with no previous relation to GENSEX. Undecided on the indef: SFR makes the case above that issues with Roxy's editing are not confined to GENSEX, but without diffs, and I'm torn on whether or not a GENSEX Tban would be sufficient if the only current problems are GENSEX-related, though I'm leaning towards supporting following the arguments of e.g. Tamzin and SnowRise. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Edited 18:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  As one example, in March 2022, Roxy was formally warned by ArbCom to "remain collegial in editing and interacting with others" in the 2022 Skepticism and coordinated editing case decision. From my view, this history helps show how the concerns about ongoing personal attacks discussed here are not 'confined to GENSEX' - there appears to be a broader conduct issue that is not limited to nor a function of the GENSEX topic area. And to be clear - editors who are openly trans on this site are not part of the GENSEX topic area - Maddy is not a 'GENSEX topic,' they are a person and an editor, and just as protected by our civility and no personal attacks policies as all editors should be.

  Had this been a matter of editing issues in one or two contentious topic areas by a seasoned editor who by now we would expect to know better, e.g. edit-warring (part of the reason for the March 2023 block) to add content over a good-faith BLP objection in the GENSEX topic area, after previously being blocked in February 2023 for a BLP violation in the GENSEX area, then from my view, this would more readily appear to be conduct that could be addressed by a TBAN. However, despite the broad March 2022 warning from ArbCom, personal attacks by Roxy continued, and previous warnings and sanctions do not appear to have worked to prevent further harm to the collegial editing environment. Beccaynr (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Beccaynr for clarifying my thinking on this. You are correct: the problem is not just Roxy's involvement in the GENSEX topic area, but Roxy's interaction with trans editors, and I think you are right that simply expanding the scope of the TBAN will not address this issue. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Axiomatically correct"? Good grief. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose any action until two weeks are up at least. This happens all the time, you see. Someone gets blocked, is unable to answer back, there's a sudden rush of blood to the head, and there you have it: people start calling for indefs and Cbans, etc. Calmez vous. But, there's no rush. Not for two weeks. See what effect Bradv's block has. Blocks aren't punitive, and there's no need for this to turn into a battlefield any more than it is already; another interesting phenomenon is how, when the main protagonist is removed from the argument—as the Dog has been—everybody starts fighting each other.
  BTW, if Dronebogus replies to this, you may consider me a support for an indef from the inevitable ANI Tban that they will doubtless face. SN54129 14:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, you note Roxy is "unable to answer back", as though Roxy's response to this ANI thread being created was not a transphobic attack, as though there has not been significant engagement by Roxy on their talk page, and as though Bradv had not posted a statement from Roxy merely five messages above yours. We have seen, demonstrably, that blocks do not work with this user...I understand the want to give another chance, but that is a risk, and we as a community have given a lot of rope already. Best, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 14:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Negative refactoring, Vermont, and please see WP:ECHO for why your attempted ping to me failed. But, my best to you all the same, and with due respect. SN54129 14:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  The refactoring was me, @Serial Number 54129, because I was making MOS:INDENTMIX fixes and interpreted your postscript as being meant as a reply to your own post. I've now left your restoration of the original formatting as-is, but removed the signature from the first part (before the para break) because it fools Discussion Tools into allowing the insertion of replies between the two parts of your post. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @XAM2175: Thank you for sorting that out for me, I appreciate the techno-fixes as it's the sort of thing that can be important but I'll be the first to admit I often don't realise—cheers! And, Vermont, please accept my apology, if you can, for wrongly accusing you; it was clearly ill-founded, as a look at the page history would have told me. Sorry! SN54129 15:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  No worries. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, since you've disallowed Dronebogus from replying to this, I'll be the one to remind you that Roxy the dog admitted to being a TERF, and was not under the two-week block when that was said. This is a problem that's been happening for a while now, and Roxy has been given so much rope that he could lay it down and have it go around the Earth three times. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am unlikely to be reminded of much by a 16 month old account; but thanks anyway. SN54129 23:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Then how about a 19 year old account reminding you of same, young'n? --Golbez (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  And if I had tried to patronise you and tried to teach you how things worked, that would be a perfectly reasonable response. But unlike the 16-monther, I didn't, so it isn't. SN54129 14:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef and TBAN. Snow Rise and ScottishFinnishRadish have said everything I would have. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef per Tamzin. Legoktm (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Indef editing isn't a right, but editors have a right to not have to face transphobic rhetoric here. This is not a new editor who didn't know better, this is same old bullshit from the usual suspects. Anyone but Roxy would have used up their last chance long ago. Star Mississippi 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support upgrade to TBAN, 3-month site ban. I've worked in this area, though I haven't worked with RTD before (at least per my recollection). On the other hand, I have worked with and have a great amount of respect for a lot of the editors here, though those editors seem largely split between endorsing just a TBAN or an indefinite site ban. As I understand it, RTD's TBAN was previously confined to transgender athletes. Roxy made a comment about Chelsea Manning—who would not have been within the scope of the TBAN—that seemed to argue a ... borderline sui generis understanding of deadnaming—it effectively incorporated the notability pre/post-transition distinction in MOS:GENDERID to conclude that someone who was notable pre transition does not have a deadname. Alone, I probably would've said that the comment was misguided and great evidence of why the current tban should continue, but RTD subsequently accused an editor (Maddy) of "standard transsexual hounding". That's problematic for two reasons: first, it's a clear identity-based personal attack against the editor in question (who, not that it matters, was actually correct as to the meaning of deadnaming), and, second, it's an aspersion against trans people writ large.
  For the latter issue, I think upgrading the TBAN is the obvious consequence, and I think a GENSEX TBAN for such comments by editors who have, in other areas, been productive is pretty standard. For the former comment, I think a 3-month ban is called for. I don't think we can ignore that this was an identity-based attack motivated by some of the same thinking that lead to RTD's initial tban. Ideally, a temporary site ban would make clear to RTD what the current tban apparently did not. At the same time, blocks are supposed to be preventive, and it's worth noting that a GENSEX tban would, as I understand, bar RTD from commenting on Chelsea Manning, which is how this began. I also think it should be clear that another identity-based personal attack will be met with an indef ban.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In March 2022 as a result of the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing, Roxy the dog was warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others. See warning here.

In the enforcement section, it reads: 0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. See: Enforcement of restrictions.

Is that arbitration ruling still in force, and enforceable in light of recent comments? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as a former arbitrator, a warning is not a sanction that is enforceable, that boilerplate enforcement language is for topic bans, which there was one passed in that case. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as a sitting arb, though also only speaking for myself, if asked I would have found SilkTork's December block of Roxy citing the arbcom findings to be in keeping with the case and appropriate enforcement of it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49I agree that that block was warranted, and the warning issued basically amounts to “shape up or get blocked, and if you come back here for the same things expect a site ban to be voted on.” Just meant the warnings don’t (or at least didn’t used to) come with enforceable protected blocks, the kind you undo and expect a L2 desysop with your morning coffee. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support GENSEX TBan per the previous discussion at large. On the main flashpoint of "standard transsexual hounding": that really does not look good, but I'm not convinced it was intended as a PA, per KoA (I also wish Roxy could respond or clarify, but they're blocked their Talk page discussion is a great venue for them to have explained, and they haven't as of yet). Regardless of that, though, this editor apparently has a history of poor editing in this topic area - I don't think a topic ban is unwarranted at this point. Also, Oppose indef block/site ban, primarily based on their block log: Since November 2018, I see 4 blocks for edit-warring/content policy reasons, mostly separated by 6+ months. From that, I see an editor who probably has chronic issues adhering to that policy, but typically cools off after a block and edits productively (and steadily) for a while afterward. Repeated infractions probably warrant longer blocks, and eventually an indef, but I'm not sure we're there yet on this front. I don't read a persistent lack of civility across all topic areas from the block log - I think the topic ban would be effective at limiting future civility infractions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
  • The block on May 22 was for edit warring and personal attacks [146] after this comment. - Bilby (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  This IS a repeated infraction though. If you can say "They've been blocked multiple times before but let's only escalate if they repeat this." when is enough enough? It doesn't matter if they cool off because the damage being done is disruptive itself. What's the alternative? They go on a disruptive rampage of vandalism for a month? GabberFlasted (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Indef and require GENSEX tban for any future unblock - The transphobic comments by RtD are just beyond the pale, and we cannot allow this to continue. Anything short of a site ban is just allowing this user to continue harassing and hounding trans Wikipedians, and should not be tolerated. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef. I've read through the various comments above, and, so far as the most recent and relevant behavior is concerned, see enough for that. There have been some fellows of the opinion that an indefinite ban might be too drastic and that a topic ban is sufficient, taking into account Roxy's useful contributions to other aspects of the project. Respectfully, I don't think that's appropriate or relevant. Roxy is a self-admitted TERF, ergo transphobe, and as a result of that has demonstrated transphobia on this project. Trying to silo them into useful and non-useful parts in this particular respect is horrific policy. It's not acceptable to allow an open racist or misogynist to contribute and be part of a community so long as they avoid open discussion about race or sex. The topic ban proposed effectively says that transphobia is a lesser phobia than other discriminatory actions and attitudes. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 22:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support gensex TBAN for user's history of gleeful anti-trans behavior - user seems essentially incapable of productive contributions in the topic area. Support temp block for personal attacks, which should be made indef if they continue after unblock. --Equivamp - talk 23:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block While I do not think not accepting gender theory should automatically result in an indefnite block, Roxy's comments clearly hinder collaboration and are incompatible with Wikipedia's values. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone has called for a block for "not accepting gender theory." --Golbez (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I never said that. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support indefinite site ban and indefinite GENSEX topic ban - Noting here that Roxy and I were both opposite parties to an arbcom case where Roxy was warned (and I reminded) to remain collegial in editing due to interactions between us. I'm continually disappointed in Roxy's inability to improve their conduct and to recognize the benefits to the community they could bring if they weren't so immensely high-maintenance. However, Wikipedia does not need them and if they are unable to learn how to collaborate constructively they should face a site ban. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef CBAN with indef topic ban from GENSEX as a requirement for unblocking per self-admittance of being a TERF. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I still subscribe to WaltCip's viewpoint. Also this section in WP:HATEDISRUPT is good read:

Under this essay, bigoted editors are not blocked for their ideologies; they are blocked for their behavior. It just so happens that their ideologies correlate nearly 1:1 with a tendency toward disruptive behavior, especially given that the very act of self-identifying as a member of a hate movement is disruptive behavior.

This distinction is important. Non-bigoted editors outside the political mainstream, both on the right and the left, may read NONAZIS and reasonably worry that their ideology is next. Others may infer a political or geographical bias in the focus on right-wing extremists in Europe and the core Anglosphere. Focusing on ideology, in justifying blocks, raises many difficult-to-answer questions, needlessly complicates things, and leads to drama every time a block is made citing these essays. The real answer is simple: Hate is disruptive. We block people for disruption. We block people who say and do and align with hateful things.

This only sounds controversial if you go out of your way to make it sound controversial. ibicdlcod (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's a tangent that doesn't need to go any further. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Some editors are claiming others, by taking a more nuanced approach, belittles the harm of transphobia. But we all lives in an environment where not all discriminations are opposed equal. For exapmle (from just the race-ethnic ones) the Western world and this very wiki often treats Russians/Serbians/Azerberjiani as lesser than Ukrainians/(ethnic Albanian)Kosovoar/Armenians. Even Nazi-calling is accepted. So fighting all discrimination equally is hard (I hope we can all do that anyway). And can easily result in paradoxes: should Armenian Genocide denial be a bannable offense, and 80% of Turkish editors hold this view (according to a editor's claim at ANI), are we discriminating against Turks, or not? ibicdlcod (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC) the Western world and this very wiki often treats Russians/Serbians/Azerberjiani as lesser than Ukrainians/(ethnic Albanian)Kosovoar/Armenians. That is a very bizarre statement to make. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support indef site ban per above. No signs of growth seeing error of ways. Can return at some point. -- GreenC 15:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to GENSEX broadly construed, oppose indef per Tryptofish, Cullen, KoA and others. I agree with what SFR wrote above (if you admit to bigotry, admit to bias, get warned and blocked because of it, then continue editing in that topic area without adjusting the behavior it is an issue), and it is an issue that requires Roxy to be banned from editing/commenting anywhere within the GENSEX area. But I am also, perhaps naively, hopeful that this indicates a (new?) level of both self-awareness and an awareness of others that will result in a much improved editor going forward. I really hope I am not wrong about that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indef and topic ban Like c'mon, this is an editor who has a long history of incivility in general and a record of outright bigotry in this specific area. I am astounded there are any editors that don't support an indef. Loki (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban, not there yet, and we usually give productive editors (which Roxy most certainly is in medical content) a chance to make right whatever is wrong, particularly when their controversial edits occurred during a period of bad health. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

• Comment On this thread several users have pointed to Roxy's statement they are a "TERF" to be sufficient grounds for a permanent ban in itself. Have I missed a meeting here? Has it been decided that people who self-define as Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists are not tolerated here? This is outside of the other facts of the case, the "transexual hounding" comment seems very hard to defend against charges of transphobia, it has been convincingly stated that swapping in almost any other minority demographic here would be considered hateful. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  "TERF" led us to conclude intentional transphobia rather than just pronoun ignorance is involved. ibicdlcod (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that this argument makes sense (though I think the pronoun thing here is not enough for sanction on its own), but it's not what people are saying. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Indef site ban - And we should ensure the entire community knows this behavior is not acceptable here. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to GENSEX area (broadly construed), oppose indef. There are many other areas of this encyclopedia, where this editor may be (and is) productive. Limited block and broad topic ban are the best outcome for the project. Pavlor (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

pre-Closure consultation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In my many closures, I've never done this before, but I'm gonna make an exception in this case. Per WP:BANPOL, in about a day, this complaint may be closed. The way I see it, there are roughly two opposing views: the less severe one seeks to apply a broad WP:GENSEX WP:TBAN, while the more severe one proposes a WP:CBAN indef block. My sense is that the latter currently has WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. Anyway, the GENSEX TBAN side brings up RtD's long years of productivity; whereas the CBAN side emphasizes the bigoted comment highlighted, in addition to RtD having a long history of personal attacks and incivility (including recently), which is reflected in their lengthy block log. As well, there's the matter of trans editors being forced to share the same editing ecosystem with someone self-described as exclusionary. I am highly sympathetic to this viewpoint, and normally this would all just be in my closing summary. However, a few hours ago, the following exchange occurred on RtD's talk page:

So that's it then. I am a hateful transphobic bigot, condemmed by the community. I am very sorry, and I hope the community will allow me to continue to contribute in areas outside GENSEX, where I have already accepted I am not able to contribute in a positive way. I have contributed and would wish to continue to contribute in a positive way in many other areas of the project. -Roxy the dog 08:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement I am a hateful transphobic bigot will be used against you by irony-immune users. If I was in your place, I would strike it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Hob. This is unfortunate, because this was me admitting my failings, acknowledging what I have done and the condemnation of the community. I was not being ironic. This was the accused admitting his guilt. Your good faith misenterpretation only serves to illustrate how difficult it is for me to achieve clarity in my responses. At this stage, everything I say is being picked apart, it is heartbreaking for me to acknowledge my failings in this way. Thank you once more. - Roxy the dog 09:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [Emphasis added in bold]

So, in light of that, I ask those who favour a CBAN: how do view this latest comment by RtD? Does it count as a genuine admission to the extent worthy of downgrading the CBAN into less severe sanctions? There are no wrong answers here, and those who still prefer to review contrition in an appeal six months or a year from now — I consider that to be a totally legit position. What I'm trying to determine, however, is if anyone has changed their minds in light of the excerpt quoted above. And if not, could it still be changed, and what would it take for that to happen. Thanks. El_C 19:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm out of this discussion for obvious reasons so I just want to change my vote to "whatever comes out of this El_C chat." I respect you and have faith that what you pick will be the best. I'm good with downgrading, etc. Not because of the exerpt, but only specifying that because you did. --Golbez (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Personally, I always have more respect (in relative terms) for people who will acknowledge their views for what they are. If I had to pick between spending time with an avowed neo-Nazi or a guy who just thinks Jews maybe have too much influence in banking, I'd pick the former, because at least he's being honest about what he is. (Pardon the reductio ad Hitlerum, but I think it gets the point across.) That said, that personal view, that honesty deserves some respect, doesn't translate to thinking that such a person should edit here. Roxy's honesty means I probably wouldn't have a problem grabbing a pint with them, but it doesn't change the fact (and indeed exacerbates the fact) that their presence in this wiki creates a hostile editing environment for trans/nonbinary/gender-nonconforming editors. If this admission is the first step toward self-reflection that leads to a disavowal of these views someday, I'll be the first in line to support an unban. But as stands a ban remains necessary, or is even more clearly necessary than before. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Change their minds? I doubt it. I think people who want to understand Roxy oppose siteban already. In the support siteban section there is strong indication that this is too little too late for them. But I think there is not yet rough consensus for siteban. ibicdlcod (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Shoot, this is tough. I've been aware of RtD's comments on their talk page for some time, and I have reconsidered my position with them in mind. I really don't want to support an indef/siteban for RtD—it's obvious that they've done a lot of good work here, and a lot of editors have had positive interactions with them and hold them in high regard. As I write this I'm painfully aware of WP:DEFARGE and I really hope what I'm writing here isn't a part of and doesn't contribute to the sort of mindless crowd justice that the essay describes. I've never met RtD and I haven't interacted with them onwiki so I'm not in a position to judge their sincerity. I'm very glad to see their introspection and self-reflection. If this personal attack was an isolated event that hadn't been preceded by any other examples of poor conduct I could maybe be persuaded to change my !vote, if and only if transgender/non-binary/LGBTQ+ editors expressed that they were satisfied with the self-reflection and supported RtD returning to editing. Sadly, this is not the case. If this sort of reaction by the community is what it takes for RtD to reexamine their behaviors and perspectives, I'm not comfortable with them editing here. Civility and respect is one of the five pillars for a very good reason—the sort of behavior that Roxy has been blocked for in the past is corrosive to a collaborative editing environment and drives good-faith contributors off the project. I don't want to be a part of a community where repeated personal attacks are seen as ultimately inconsequential lapses of judgement that can be forgiven and forgotten after a block and a few weeks of productive editing, without any evidence of concrete steps taken by the offender to address concerns about their behavior. For these reasons I, regretfully, maintain my support for a siteban. — SamX [talk · contribs] 20:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• I find RtD's prior comment, I follow the science, I am not any of those hateful things. open to interpretation and (at his own admission) his words are open to misinterpretation. Perhaps he will set the record straight on that? If it means the same as "Whatever. God is on my side" (and means not just his scientific skepticism but the trans stuff as well), I find it questionable and it might tip me from my earlier !novote comment to a ban, not only for his most recent comments but also for his prior interactions, though much mitigated by his work in other areas. I think he was lucky at ArbCom to have simply been warned to remain collegial, because the atmosphere around fringe topics has at times become a battleground. And I say that as a moderate and hopefully open-minded (UK) liberal democrat who has played a bit part in the fields of physics, electronics, and software engineering. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• I certainly haven't changed my mind. I am a non-trans man myself, but I find it difficult if I know that the person that I'm editing with could have such an attitude to me personally, whether that attitude is admitted or not. Let's not fall into the trap of regarding such people as just the "good ol' boys". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• I haven't offered an opinion on a sanction because I figured I would be viewed as involved because I was subject to this [147] from Roxy. However, I have not viewed this discussion as focused on, as Roxy puts it, identifying "a hateful transphobic bigot, condemmed by the community" but instead on conduct that has continued to be disruptive and harmful despite warnings and sanctions. So I leave it to the community to decide whether it is okay for someone to behave toward other editors as Roxy has, and then be permitted to continue editing anywhere without acknowledging the harm caused to editors and the community. Beccaynr (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• I've tried to disengage from this thread, but I think now that this is approaching closure, and given the nature of this subdiscussion, my comment may be of use.
  Roxy the dog's statement is worthless. It amounts to: "Yes, I'm a transphobe. Now let me edit." No attempt to apologize or other moves towards reconciliation. No, thanks. I guess it funnily resembles the arguments of the participants opposing a siteban. Compare this to their response where they at least offered some form of apology, and yet here we are. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• No change in opinion. If they actually wanted to “admit guilt” they’d renounce their transphobic beliefs instead of doubling down with the addendum that they (claim to) feel terrible about being a bigot. If it feels so terrible why are you still a bigot? Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Plus I know firsthand that people getting aggressively fried under a magnifying glass tend to be hyperbolically self-flagellating even if they’re not truly “ironic”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe Roxy's message is meant to say what Maddy above thinks it says. But then I don't think I understand what it says either. This is a problem with Roxy's communication style in general, that it's often utterly opaque, which becomes a huge problem when they start offending other editors. I've been there with them, where they wrote something to me that if read the wrong way sounds awfully close to 'go kill yourself', and I couldn't even get them to engage about it (this incident was probably instrumental in the later Arbcom warning).
  I !voted against a c-ban expressing the hope that Roxy would explain themselves and somehow assure that we will see no more civility problems from them. Ibicdlcod writes above that those who are on the oppose siteban side want to understand Roxy, and that's indeed the main reason why I !voted the way I did. Unfortunately, despite closely watching their talk, I still do not understand. I personally refuse to believe that there's any real bigotry or hatred there, but Roxy needs to convince a large majority of editors of this too. If they cannot do that, it's probably in everybody's best interest that they are indeed banned from editing here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that an editor is consistently uncivil in their communication style and is simply incapable of moderating this, as they have been consistently tolerated to a much greater degree than most users. This has led to a situation where their incivility has finally collided with a topic where large numbers of users are unwilling to tolerate insensitivity. I have some sympathy for RtD, as how were they to know this was the place the line was drawn? Perhaps the lesson here is to start to apply the same rules to everyone, rather than making allowances for the "big beasts"... I know if I'd done a quarter of what RtD had, I'd have been out on my arse.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that example is pretty bad. These are the sorts of interactions I was referencing when I said that RtD's conduct has been corrosive to a collaborative editing environment. I really don't want to volunteer along with someone who habitually does that sort of thing. I'm not even referring specifically to Roxy the dog here, either. If I need to worry that I'll be faced with stonewalling and personal attacks whenever I challenge someone's edits, I don't want to edit here, period. It's just not worth it, and I'm saying that as a cishet dude—I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to face people who invalidate your very existence. — SamX [talk · contribs] 22:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The "long walk, short pier" quote is a really pertinent example. It is not actually that bad a thing to say in older people's British English, almost a little joke. But the moment you realise someone has taken it to heart you have to clarify, a. because it's right, b. because it could be misconstrued as incitement to suicide by the community. RtD just chose not to because he (correctly) thought he would get away with it.--Boynamedsue (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• It probably won't surprise anyone, and it probably won't change anyone's mind, that I read Roxy's latest comments as genuinely reflecting that he feels awful about what he said, and that he will abide by the community's wish that he not only not edit about the topic, but not make any comments to editors that reflect the attitude that got him here. I'll also point to WP:NOTAVOTE, and advise that this consultation should not boil down to counting up the number of editors who have changed their minds, and the number who have not. It needs to reflect the overall consensus over the length of this discussion, and that's not a vote either. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  I read it as you read it, which is why I mentioned it above. I believe it was honest, and the weight of a community you've belonged to for a long while crashing down on you can lead to legitimate reconsideration of your views. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think people need to take into consideration that this isn't just a few instances of transphobic comments (though I'm not absolutely trying to diminish that) but that this is a continuation of a very very long period of incivility, insults, belittling and personal attacking of other editors as evidenced by a huge block log and the evidence of many continued chances that haven't changed anything. At the end of the day it's not just the transgender community that Roxy is doing damage and performing insults against, it's all editors and has been for a long long time. The point I'm making is this is just a final straw, on a long career and history of insults and incivility that can strike at any member of this community. This is why I don't think a GENSEX ban is the answer, but an actual indefinite block. I am also going to be quick to point out that indefinite does not mean permanent. However I do strongly believe that Roxy needs some time away from here and that when they return they need to convince the community as a whole, after that long period of cooling off, that they are no longer a disruption or attacker against other community members before regaining their editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 23:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Despite everything that has been said, despite being blocked from his talk page, I would love nothing more than to sit down with Roxy and to try and help him understand why the science is not on his side. I would love to help him understand what it feels like when the sex you are assigned at birth is incongruent with your own internal sense of self. I would love to help him understand why TERF rhetoric and ideas harm not only trans and non-binary individuals, but also cisgender people. And I think regardless of what happens next, I would like to leave that door open to him should he desire it.
  El_C has asked if this most recent comment is enough for me to reconsider my !vote for a indef. And honestly, I don't know. I feel like this is the beginning of an apology, it's acknowledging that he has said harmful things. But. I think Maddy and Tamzin have this right. For me it's the start of an apology, but it's missing the key steps of acknowledging specific harms (eg, the hounding comment, Roxy's incredibly hurtful and targeted comments about Beccanyr), and a commitment to become a better person. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• I note User talk:Roxy the dog#A proposed resolution, and I'd like to suggest seeing what comes of it, before closing the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just want to make sure I understand: Roxy has already said they'd accept a topic ban, correct? So the proposed resolution is that they'd also accept a IBAN w.r.t. Maddy?--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, you're reading the same thing that I am. I would assume that it also hinges upon what exactly Roxy says in response, and how he says it. I note what Sideswipe says just above, that his comments above sound like "the beginning of an apology", and that it might matter to some editors whether he can take it further, and if so, in what way and with what kind of attitude. (I'm trying to answer your question without coaching Roxy on what to say, because I really think that falls entirely on him.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's totally fair! I had seen a few posts disputing whether Roxy had agreed to the topic ban, so I figured I'd check.--Jerome Frank Disciple 00:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  According to Roxy, they had already been acting under a defacto topic ban and wasn't editing in the GenSex area. I don't see how a new topic ban would change things if the previous one didn't. 130.220.8.162 (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  As I understand it, this would extend to never commenting to (or about) other editors about anything having to do with the subject, not just staying away from pages in the topic area. But I think it's probably best not to speculate until we see what Roxy actually says. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think we consider the offer before we have a reply. But as someone who is well aware of Roxy's actions, do you really think that GenSex is the only area of concern? - 130.220.8.162 (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've already commented on that, in my original comment in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  So it is a ban on GenSex, and a hope that Roxy has got the point in general. Got it. - 130.220.8.162 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, just for the point of continuity—I'm not asking you to out yourself, but can you clarify if you were one of the IPs who participated above? I tried to figure out what the context for these comments were, but your contribution page says these are your first 4 edits ever. (I used to move around a bit as an IP, so I understand if it's just switching up on you!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• I also read Roxy's comments as Tryptofish does. I do not believe they meant the level of offense that some are seeing in the comments. As such I do not support a CBAN. Springee (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• No change Surprising that ELC wants us all to reaffirm our ivote as they are usually quick on the draw. The editor has a long history of being uncivil and the site ban is needed. I do not care what kind of positive contributions a person makes, we simply cannot have the long term snarling. Aster multiple blocks, a warning at Arbcom and an easy consensus above we still have to vacillate here with ivote reaffirming. Lightburst (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

RE: usually quick on the draw: as mentioned, minimum duration per BANPOL is 72 hours, which will be ~7 hours from now. El_C 03:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not changing my !vote. This was the final nail in the coffin for me. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moves against consensus by Buaidh

Buaidh moved List of populated places in Colorado: A–K to List of populated places in Colorado and moved List of populated places in Colorado: L–Z to List of populated places in Colorado-02 with the summary "Perform requested move, see talk page". On the talk pages, the only requested move is from last year, where there was consensus for the pages to exist at the titles from which they were moved yesterday, a consensus that Buaidh supported at the time. I assume good faith in that Buaidh may have forgotten about the existing consensus rather than blatantly making a series of page moves against it. Instead, I see this more as a competence is required issue. As a page mover, this user should know to ensure moves have consensus and/or are not potentially controversial before conducting complex round-robin moves. Moreover, this series of moves involved 3 pages being requested for speedy deletion when proper use of suppress redirect could have afforded these moves without need of involving admins. This user suppress-moved the redirect List of populated places in Colorado/02 to Draft:List of populated places in Colorado/02, the latter of which was speedy deleted per G8, essentially improperly employing suppress-redirect to delete a valid {{R from move}} redirect. Similarly, this user requested List of populated places in Colorado: L–Z, another {{R from move}} redirect, be speedy deleted per WP:G7, which it improperly was; generally redirects from page moves should not be speedy deleted per G7. Buaidh recreated the redirect when I pointed this out but otherwise defended the moves by stating "List-02...is the format used for a great many extended lists". However, searching intitle:/-02/ combined with intitle:List reveals the only split lists using this scheme are the aforementioned List of populated places in Colorado-02 and the related List of places in Colorado-02. The naming conventions at WP:NCSPLITLIST do not advise numbering split lists sequentially in this way and instead recommend use of the A–K and L–Z format, where these pages existed previously per consensus at the RM. I come to ANI because rather than risking wheel warring with a fellow page mover by reverting these moves made against consensus, given the above, at a minimum I feel this user should not be trusted with page mover rights, as they are using them to make moves against consensus (or at least without sufficient due-diligence to ensure the moves are not potentially controversial) and are not taking sufficient care with related redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this really an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioral problem? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, yes, this is the most appropriate forum for addressing this. Urgent in that there is a desire to avoid need for further reverts of complex moves, and this is not the first time this user has been involved with issues regarding page moves. WP:MR is not an appropriate forum because it is limited to outcomes of move discussions. I could contact the admin who granted page mover rights, but that could be construed as admin shopping. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The use of sequential numbering of extended lists is used extensively in the WikiProjects namespace. The advantage of sequential numbering is that the the component lists can be rebalanced when additional entries are added by moving letter groups around without the need to rename the sequential sublists. The first of the sequential lists is given the name of the List and subsequent sublists are numbered List-02, List-03, List-04, etc. This means that a user can go directly to the name of the List without having to be redirected. This has been a very useful solution to this problem. Thanks for your interest,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 20:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Buaidh - Please link to that guidance, so that we can find out why it differs from other established guidance. - jc37 21:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe that makes sense for project space, but is not used in article space. The scheme you seem to favor (but went along with last August) is essentially to use WP:SUBPAGES, which are not allowed in main space (as we discussed at the RM). Articles in mainspace, including list articles, need to have a precise title indicative of their content, hence "A–K" is favored over the ambiguous "-02" per WP:NCSPLITLIST. Regardless, there was existing recent consensus in this particular case, and a discussion such as a WP:RM would be needed to change it. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not certain that this is the best venue for this, but we're here, so whatever. (shrugs)

The "previous consensus", appears to be Talk:List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado#Requested_move_31_August_2022 - which had 3 contributors (and a closer).

That aside, the syntax that Template:A-Z multipage list appears to use is: colon space letter (or letter range). Which also appears to match the guidance at WP:NCSPLITLIST, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Glossaries#Article_growth_and_splitting.

Is that best practice? I don't know, but it seems to work. And happens to also be what the contributors to the aforementioned discussion seem to have agreed upon.

I'll drop a note at User_talk:Buaidh, to see if they would consider updating their edits. - jc37 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverting these moves is appropriate per the various and sundry other stuff Jc37 links to above, without prejudice to some other more-preferred name established at a move request. Izno (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, as an aside, Buaidh is apparently splitting the analogous county list from two pieces into three (why? I have no idea, seems unnecessary) but is still leaving the same erroneous justification in the edit summary of the move of "Perform requested move, see talk page". What requested move?! There is nothing about the move on the talk pages. You need to leave an edit summary that describes the justification for the move, linking to the pertinent discussion if there is one. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I did it because I'm an inherently evil person. The requested moves are from the discussion above. While I don't agree with the discussion above, I'm happy to have completed the following moves:

• REDIRECT List of places in Colorado
  • List of places in Colorado: A–F
  • List of places in Colorado: G–O
  • List of places in Colorado: P–Z
• REDIRECT List of populated places in Colorado
  • List of populated places in Colorado: A–F
  • List of populated places in Colorado: G–O
  • List of populated places in Colorado: P–Z
• REDIRECT List of populated places in Colorado by county
  • List of populated places in Colorado by county: A–E
  • List of populated places in Colorado by county: F–L
  • List of populated places in Colorado by county: M–Z

As the current coordinator for WikiProject Colorado, the Wikimedians of Colorado User Group, and the Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West, I do try to stay on top of things. If anyone objects, please let me know. Thanks again for your interest.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Starting of with sarcasm when your actions are questioned (with good reason) won't help you at all. You claim that these moves are "requested" "from the discussion above", uh, where? I don't see anyone asking for this either in this discussion or on the talk page? Your reference to your positions in meta-Wikimedian groups comes off as an argument from authority, such groups have no bearing at all on our content. And I have my doubts whether someone who doesn't seem to understand or care about standard practices and recently closed move discussions should be the coordinator of a wikiproject, but that is up to you and the members of the project. Your status there doesn't give you any extra authority though, and doing these moves with dubious claims in the edit summaries and while this discussion here is ongoing shows a serious lack of clue. Fram (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel the personal attack above is warranted. While I am elderly, ill, curmudgeonly, and on occasion sarcastic, I try to cooperate with all members of our community and abide by the will of the consensus of our community. I truly regret that I have offended any members of our community. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 11:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You "try to cooperate" by making moves against common practice and against a RM discussion you participated in first, by making some false claims, and then by making new moves / splits because of some request only you can see. You claim a personal attack was made when none is apparent, you claim that "If anyone objects, please let me know." but have no intention to actually undo your splits even though people have objected, you ignore my question about where the split or move was requested... Fram (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for my slow response to inquiries about list changes. I help maintain hundreds of lists, articles, and templates and I often get ahead of myself on documentation. Please see Talk:List of places in Colorado, Talk:List of places in Colorado: A–F, Talk:List of places in Colorado: G–O, Talk:List of places in Colorado: P–Z, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: A–F, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: G–O, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: P–Z, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county: A–E, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county: F–L, and Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county: M–Z. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You added things like this after my above post, as if they are justification of your moves of before that post which you claimed were already requested. You could just have said "sorry, I was mistaken, these weren't requested, my fault", but instead you strongly give the impression that you try to hide lies behind a bunch of links. So, one final time, you replied to Mdewman6 that "The requested moves are from the discussion above." you claimed in your edit summaries as well that these were requested; just give us a link or a diff to show us who requested these and where, or admit that you made this up and tried to obfuscate it for some reason. Fram (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just merely as a point of clarity, I think this - Talk:List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado#Requested_move_31_August_2022 - is the "discussion above" that he's referring to. It doesn't explain the "-02", "-03" edits, but his explanation above seems to (ease of further splitting, apparently), though that still doesn't explain why, when asked about it he did a "vague wave" to some WikiProject.

In the end he did undo the edits, which is a positive, though it might have been better if that had happened through discussion. Especially since nearly all the example links I provided were also in that RM discussion which he participated in, and that he seems to continually refer to.

I wonder if there is some automated tool involved here, which could explain the seeming copy-paste edit summaries. - jc37 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I went to look at the discussion again, and see that the talk page was moved. It's now at Talk:List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado:_A–F#Requested_move_31_August_2022. - jc37 16:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: remove Page Mover right from Buaidh

As suggested by the OP, User:Mdewman6, in their opening post above, and as evidenced by the later actions of Buaidh, they can't be trusted to perform page moves according to consensus and best practices, even during a discussion of such moves: so I propose to remove the Page Mover user right from user:Buaidh. Fram (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I find this highly offensive. I'm not sure what has inspired this kind of vitriol. This proposal is being made by a user who has been previously banned from the English language Wikipedia.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 13:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand why people take issue with you moving pages without consensus (in fact, against previous discussions) and refusing to undo them when people object? This isn't vitriol. This is basic responsiveness to concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think per User_talk:Buaidh#What_have_you_done_with_List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado?, which predates this AN/I thread, shows that he does respond to requests, and he was willing to address at least some of them.

My concern is that it seems like he didn't actually read the guidance that the other editor provided in that thread. If he had, he might have seen that what he said that had been "...discussed at length over the years", was in conflict with current guidance, and perhaps the two of them could have taken a look to see if that discrepancy between the two guidances could be resolved.

In looking at Wikipedia:Page_mover#Criteria_for_revocation, I think we could maybe be looking at #1 and #4. To me, it just depends on if this is a "one-off" incident, or if this turns out to be a pattern of behaviour. - jc37 17:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support (as OP). I want to reiterate that I do believe Buaidh generally acts in good faith, and that their contributions are valued. And this is most certainly not a personal attack. There is more data about Colorado on enwiki than exists for any other state due to this user's efforts. It's just that they lack the ability to always try to go about things in a manner consistent with existing consensus, policies, and guidelines, and this takes up time of others. In addition to the issues detailed in my first post above (making page moves without checking for past RMs, or ignoring their outcome; using suppress-redirect to get a valid redirect deleted, even if inadvertent), I am especially troubled by Buaidh continuing to use the same false edit summary even after it was pointed out to them why it was a problem (twice!). Now any user in the future wondering why those pages are at their current titles will be misled or confused. To me, it seems this user either can't be bothered to come up with a more accurate edit summary, or lacks the attention to detail to notice what edit summary they are leaving; either way this says to me "just let me do what I want to do here, and however I go about it is fine". It seems to me this user pretty much marches to the beat of their own drum, doing whatever they think is necessary or best at the moment (which they themselves may decide is different a day or month or year later), and are hesitant to change what they are doing when someone questions their edits for a valid reason.

Though indirectly related to page moves, this user also seems to have problems adhering to guidance in WP:Copying within Wikipedia, as noted by me on their talk page and in an AfD and another AfD, in addition to concerns about copy and paste moves raised recently at ANI.

WP:BOLD is all well and good, but continuing along a path after someone has pointed out that the edits/moves are contrary to existing consensus or in conflict with guidelines or naming conventions is not acceptable. This is especially true in cases of round-robin moves that can only be reverted by a page mover or admin, and thus cannot be addressed through the normal WP:BRD cycle. I am glad the pages above now once again use the format recommended by WP:NCSPLITLIST, but rather than simply moving all to the A–K and L–Z format to address the issue originally raised, Buaidh also decided to split all the lists from 2 pieces into 3 while this discussion was ongoing. On its own, this is fine, if not perhaps unnecessary, but was this really done just to show that they could make good use of the page mover tools? To me, this is just another example of this user's editing whims. I would not be at all surprised to wake up in a month or 6 or 10 and find in my watchlist that List of populated places in Colorado: G–O has been moved to List of populated places in Colorado: 02 (with a colon this time around instead of a backslash or hyphen) and we go through this all over again. Removal of page mover rights is not a punitive outcome, it means we are merely saying that it would be net positive for the encyclopedia if all page moves this user wishes to make go through WP:RM to establish consensus or WP:RM/TR where another user will confirm the move is uncontroversial and has a reasonable justification. (I don't think this user should have template editor or autopatrolled permissions either, but that's not my call and seemingly beyond the scope of the current discussion.) Mdewman6 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

(To be clear, removal of page mover permissions would still allow simple page moves (where the move target is unoccupied or occupied by a redirect to the same page with a single edit- i.e. those that can be easily reverted) to be done boldy, as is the case for any autoconfirmed editor). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have always abided by the decision of a consensus of users. I made multiple mistakes in renaming these lists which I have now fixed. Since their creation, I've performed over 95% of the maintenance on these three lists which are under the primary purview of WikiProject Colorado. I have no ulterior motives. I don't feel I deserve this rebuke. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 06:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • You have been handwaving about some discussion to rename and split these lists in three parts, where you first used your unsupported naming system, and then made the split anyway: despite your claims, these weren't discussed or requested. The actual discussion from 2022, now at Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: A–F, was for a two-way split, not for what you did afterwards, and for which you have given no explanation or factual answer. Fram (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, single incident of just a single family of pages. Definitely worth discussing, but moving straight to rights revocation seems highly premature. There's been a mistake, not abuse. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I currently maintain more than 300 lists, 2800 templates, and hundreds of articles. Occasionally, I screw up. I am human. I do try to fix things and resolve issues with other users. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Fram#Colorado lists. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Where you still couldn't answer any of the questions raised here again and again. You claim to be so helpful all the time, here again you "try to resolve issues", but you have shown no evidence of this at all in this discussion. Instead of humbly proclaiming what a helpful editor you are over and over again, next time try to act like one. Fram (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I very much prefer to edit rather than debate. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Buaidh - I can understand that. However, I think you are not hearing the main concern here. I'll agree that sometimes you engage in discussion. But oftentimes you are dismissive even when there really are issues with your edits. Throughout this AN/I post, I've been trying to decide if - in the spirit of preventative not punitive - whether I, as an admin, should remove page mover from your account. You are a prolific editor and may do great work. But if it takes an AN/I thread to get you to respond to whether you are following established guidance or just your own sense of "what's right". then maybe you may need to work on explaining yourself better. To be clear - this isn't about whether you split a page into 2, 3 or 12. It's about your (lack of) engagement when questioned about your use of these extra tools. Sometimes you do. But as we've seen here. Sometimes you don't. And yes, sometimes editors can be jerks to each other when questioning others' edits. And so engaging with such editors may not seem to be productive. But, that's not what I saw in this case. You were presented with existing guidance, and you didn't address that at all.

Part of my concern is, even if Page mover is removed, you still will be able to move pages. And I would rather not see you back here - or worse - being sanctioned, in the future, due to such behaviours.

So please, I think everyone would appreciate something from you showing that you understand the issue(s), and will do better at engagement in the future. - jc37 21:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand the issues here very well. I will attempt to be more communicative and participatory. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 21:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. To be transparent, I'm not thrilled with the "non-answer" in the first part of your response.You've said that repeatedly, but your actions have only partially been supporting that assertion. But I am going to WP:AGF here, and accept that your statement is sincere and that you will work on this. Because, to be clear: If this behaviour continues, you may find that an uninvolved admin, may do more than merely remove the page mover tools. And I'd rather not see you blocked from editing, or otherwise sanctioned, in the future.

I'm not going to close this request, however. I think this can wait at least another 24 hours to see if there is any additional comment, and then someone uninvolved should be able to make a determination. - jc37 21:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

My non-answer neatly side-stepped any acknowledgement of my personal wrong doing. I answered the inquiry of User:Mdewman6 within 56 minutes with a defense of my actions rather than an acknowledgment of my mistake. (I didn’t fully or properly read the Mdewman6 post until the following day.) When Mdewman6 filed this AN/I 13 hours later, I continued to defend my changes until I finally acknowledged my mistake and repaired the lists almost six hours later. This all could have been avoided by posting my intentions at Wikipedia:Move review and following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Long (split) list naming recommendations. I often get involved in very long maintenance sessions and frequently fail to fully address legitimate inquiries and requests. I need to change this behavior which does neither me nor Wikipedia any good. My abbreviated responses often come across as arrogant which is certainly not my intent. I'm not a "my way or the highway" person. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Some of the moves, which sometimes rely of the page mover rights and can be particularly hard to undo, are a concern by themselves. But my main reason for supporting the removal of the right is the dissembling/filibustering by Buaidh when asked multiple times to provide evidence (in the form of simple diffs) to support the claims in their edit-summaries that the moves were supported by existing talk-page consensus. Abecedare (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the overwhelming consensus expressed on this AN/I. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

So, if I am understanding it right:

• The first time you moved the page on Jun 4 with edit-summary Perform requested move, see talk page, the talk-page discussion didn't really exist (this was the actual RM that had already been acted upon 10 months back)
• The second time you moved the page on Jun 6 with edit-summary Perform requested move, see talk page, the talk page referred to this ANI where your judgement about page-moves was already being questioned. And you still think the above discussion represented "overwhelming consensus" for the page moves you implemented, even though that was not even the crux of the discussion and most editors interested in the lists are unlikely to be even aware of it?

Frankly, given the unilateral disruptive moves, false/misleading edit-summaries, and the aforementioned dissembling, I am struggling to see an argument for why you should retain the page-mover right. Abecedare (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I screwed up. I've quite obviously learned a hard lesson. I really don't wish to be called up on AN/I again. After 16 years, 6 months, 18 days, and 285,095 edits this is a total embarrassment. Since I'm the one who maintains these lists, I'm the one who had to make all the repairs. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Would it kill y'all to treat Buaidh as a colleague with which you have a disagreement, instead of ... whatever this is? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Adding: And what's especially disturbing is that Buaidh appears to have done about 99% of the work in creating these pages. And now they are dragged in front the wider community, where a bunch of us who didn't do that work get to vote on whether the fact that they changed their mind about how that work should be organized is deserving of a demotion. WP:OWN, WP:SHMOWN, I'd be getting much more snippy if I were Buaidh's place. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not curmudgeonly enough. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Let's keep this in perspective. We're talking about changing a user's tools, that only 386 users other than admins currently possess, that were given at the discretion of a single admin based on evidence of both ability and need, when now we have multiple admins and other users questioning whether continuing to possess those tools is in the best interest of the project. We're not talking about a block or ban or anything punitive. I'm not seeing evidence this user can improve. To the edit summary issue, when fixing the moves originally at issue (while also splitting them from 2 parts into 3) they omitted edit summaries when copying and pasting content between pages, thus not providing any attribution for where the content being moved/duplicated came from per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, something I have pointed out to Buaidh before as noted above. For example, 121,730 bytes of content were removed from List of populated places in Colorado: A–F with an incomprehensible edit summary, and this material was copied into List of populated places in Colorado: G–O without saying where it came from. Similarly 125,331 bytes removed from List of populated places in Colorado by county: A–E and then added into List of populated places in Colorado by county: F–L with no edit summary. In short, Buaidh is always responsive to concerns, and does try to fix things, but for whatever reason, they keep doing the same problematic things. That is my concern. But if there is ultimately no consensus here for a permissions change, I am fine to see how things go. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In purely self-interest, I'm more than happy to change if it means I can avoid punitive actions in the future. You learn a great deal in 75 years. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 07:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Taluzet at Berber languages

Taluzet keeps edit warring at Berber languages disregarding attempts at constructive discussion and consensus-building. They keep deleting sourced content and replacing it with outdated unreliable ones that suit their personal bias, such as ones from the 19th century and mirrors of Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR), even trying to cite images in the talk page. They have also cited a journal from 1986 [148] but I am not sure whether its reliable or not. I have tried solving the dispute by combining all sources in a neutral tone, but this user continues to claim that the word Amazigh was used as an ethnonym for the Berber people, despite his source only suggesting that outsiders used similar sounding words (Mazacs/Mazighes/Mazazaces) to refer to them. They completely misinterpeted it and claimed that Berbers called each other Amazigh [149]. They misinterpreted another source to claim that the word was historically used in North Africa, despite the source being in present tense and talking about modern day usage, not historic. Their assumption [150] just shows that they're just spreading original research. In my talk page, they declared their intention to edit war and made personal attacks, consequently breaking the 3 revert rule in the article. [151] In other related pages, they make unsourced edits. [152][153][154] Skitash (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I know nothing about the underlying content dispute, but User:Taluzet is showing an unwillingness to settle things cooperatively with this edit. Maybe an admin with a block hammer would be "official" enough? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks like SOMEONE doesn't know how the Wiki works :/ (and really doesn't want to learn). Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 12:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

He was unwilling to accept the fact amazigh people called themselves amazigh in the past and call themselves amazigh in the present demonstrated by Salem Chaker's paper he is still trying to ignore because "its from 1986" the reason why I said that is because he kept reverting my edits and sending me messages that seem professional in my talk page to stop me from reverting his, I was the one who asked for a third party... Taluzet (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You have to combat misinformation. He is just trying to discredit my perfectly reasonable sources because one of them was from the 19th century, in what way is that a problem, the source is for the etymology of a word. The only images I sent in his talk page were extracts of works I've sourced that I assumed he didn't have access to, I don't see why it would cause any problem if I didn't use images as sources in the actual article?

In North African politics, it is very common for racist people to call Berbers Bulgar invaders or a French nationalist fabrication, he did a personal attack as well.

I don't see why I should be sourcing a claim like "the letter gaf is used in Shilha", are people sourcing their claim that Jawi uses the Gaf? Matter of fact, nobody sources any claim of usage of the letter in that article. Taluzet (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just discuss the issue on the talk page rather than edit war and say that you will continue edit warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I discussed the issue on his talk page, I invite you to read it. Taluzet (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have already refuted your claims yet you continue to make the same assertions. Your source does not support "amazigh people called themselves amazigh in the past". It only mentions the exonyms which foreigners referred to them as, but you are misinterpreting this and claiming that Berbers called each other with endonyms which is completely false. This only shows your intentions to POV push as you deleted sourced content which clearly said Berbers did not have a collective endonym for themselves, and you continue to edit war to delete this from the page. To address your false accusation, I have never called Berbers "Bulgar invaders or a French nationalist fabrication". Your remark trying to indirectly refer to me as "racist" is another personal attack. Skitash (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Here, the word Amazigh was used AS AN ETHNONYM by amazigh people in Antiquity https://www.cairn.info/revue-strategique-2009-1-page-129.htm?ref=doi#no5, amazigh people used the word Amazigh in the middle ages (Van Boogert 1997 in the sources I put in the article), and use it today (Kossmann 2020 in the sources I put in the article). How is it a Berber nationalist fabrication? Taluzet (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That source doesn't support your claims either, nor does it mention any specific ethnonym. Could you provide a direct quote? If you are referring to "Masax", it appears that you are misinterpreting sources again. Using a translation of a word by Van Boogert does not prove that the word was used either. Please do not go off topic, the focus here is what they referred to themselves historically, not the present. It is interesting to note that you previously cited the same present-tense source to support your claim about the historic use of 'Amazigh' as an endonym. Skitash (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Skitash @Phil Bridger Would a block proposal for @Taluzet be necessary at this point? This user's constant disruptive editing and personal attacks clearly warrant a block. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that implementing a block would be necessary in this situation. Taluzet appears to be an ethnic pov-pushing account that is clearly WP:NOTHERE just like you said. Skitash (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We'll see what mods decide to do.

In the meantime it would be lovely of your to answer my question. Taluzet (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It does prove it though? Van de Boogert's book contains a transliteration and translation of a 17th century Shilha Book, where the word "tamazixt" is used to refer to the language, and "imazighn" is used to refer to "Berbers".

Did you read my source? "Corippe emploie le terme grec et poétique d’“armée massyle” pour qualifier l’armée des tribus maures. Il utilise aussi le mot “Mazax” que les Maures emploient pour se désigner". A Latin author from the 6th century reports the word "Mazax" that they use to self designate.

Now a question, do you believe the word imazighn is a 20th century invention? Taluzet (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In what way is "Maxax" the same thing as "Amazigh"? And in what way does a single word in a 17th century book prove that it was widespread and used all over the Maghreb? To answer your question, I do not make up facts but I will let you read what the source I left on the talk page says [155]. The point of this discussion is not for you to repeat your same arguments, I will leave this conversation for the administrators to decide. Skitash (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Mazax is obviously the same word as amazigh, gh and x in Tamazight are interchangeable (hence the variant tamazixt used by Chleuh), of course a Latin author would not write "Amazigh" and will corrupt the word a little, it happens for all ethnonyms transcribed to Latin.

The multiple times Amazigh/Tamazixt are used in modern and Medieval books shows it was in use in the Middle Ages, and since it's used now all over Morocco as well as by Tuaregs, we can conclude there's a contuinuity in Amazigh as an autonym. Taluzet (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That's called original research. Like Phil Bridger said, you're still misunderstanding the nature of this discussion. Skitash (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Taluzet, you seem to misunderstand the nature of this discussion. Issues of what source says what should be discussed on the article talk page. This discussion is about your behaviour in editing the article before a consensus is reached, and saying that you will continue to do so. Once again, I know nothing about the underlying content dispute, and this is not the place to discuss it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I tried to reach a consensus, but all he kept repeating was "your sources aren't reliable" and "your source is from 1876". When he called it a French nationalist invention I understood that his motive wasn't to reach a consensus. Taluzet (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I never called it a French nationalist invention. Do not spread false information about me. Skitash (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh my bad, I was refering to this quote from your talk page "The term Imazighen was introduced by Berber nationalists in the 20th century to counter the image that they were a collection of diverse tribes". Although this is also a factually wrong trope used by Anti-Berbers, since the word is very well attested. Taluzet (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  But please, even if you block me, don't keep that false remark in the Berber languages page, it is such a recurring theme in Anti-Berber discourse and so easily disprovable, just read the talk page. Taluzet (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  This just shows that you didn't read any of the sources I sent. [156] "To counter the image that Berbers were a mere collection of disparate tribes speaking mutually incomprehensible dialects, they introduced an indigenous term of self-referral–Imazighen". I did not make up anything or misinterpret anything like you did. Skitash (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah yes, tribes, that each speak a separate language, definitely accurate and has no undertones.

  Anyways, I added a remark that Berbers were not culturally unified, but to say they didn't use the word amazigh is false. Taluzet (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is true that imazighen as a term that applies to all Berbers wasn't the reality, as most Berbers weren't even aware of the existance of their relatedgroups, it was simply a shared word most Berbers used to refer to their own group. You're mixing self-referral and united identity. Amazigh in the modern day was expanded to mean all Berber groups, because it is a well attested word in practically all of the Amazigh languages, that aren't limited to tribes Taluzet (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Propose partial block from the article for both users due to the straightforward comparison of article history to talk page history, which reflects well on no one. Then, after you've both had a good long read of Wikipedia:Civility, you can move on to the steps described at WP:DR. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  We discussed it on my talk page. Skitash (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Block proposal for Taluzet

Taluzet has been disruptive editing, edit warring (and when confronted about it, dismissively continued to edit war) and personal attacks. I propose an indef block on Taluzet's account. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed: this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Deleting sourced content, source misinterpretation, ethnic POV-pushing, edit warring, personal attacks. Skitash (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You misinterpreted the source yourself, she said "they do not refer to themselves as Berber", and you wrote "they do not refer to themselves as Berber/Amazigh", when did I attack you personally? Taluzet (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not, and this place isn't for you to repeat the same arguments. Go and have a look at the talk page. Skitash (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment noting that I've seen this Amazigh thing elsewhere, [157], there may be a broader WP:ADVOCACY issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's a pretty well known issue in North African politics, Amazigh is the word Berbers prefer to use to refer to their people, since the word Barbar in Arabic means Barbarian, and that a lot of Berber languages share variants the word "Amazigh" to refer to their people, or Tamazight to refer to the language, but some people, non-Berbers mostly, don't like using it, so they justify it by saying it is a modern invention and that Berbers never used 'Amazigh' to refer to themselves,

I don't mind using Berber for terminology, but I was perplexed at the claim that it wasn't used, me myself being a speaker from a group that uses it actively. Taluzet (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, sounds plausible (and quite human). The basic WP-solution is to use what sources generally use, and perhaps try to add Amazigh sometimes on some sort of WP:PROPORTION basis. It may be productive to attempt a WP:RFC on "How should we mention Amazigh in Berber-related articles?" at someplace like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind usage of Berber to be honest, what I reverted was a claim that the word Amazigh isn't traditionally used by Berber people.

It'd be a good idea for people seeking usage of terms with less undertones to go through this procedure though, I'll contact more active Amazigh Wikipedians to see if they'd like going asking for a more proportionate use of the words. Thanks! Taluzet (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Request action against a long-time disruptive user

I have decided to report the user @SLBedit for improper conduct and offensive remarks. I will start by presenting the case that impelled me to take this course of action and I will follow with some considerations about the user, in order to provide more information for the best judgment possible.

On 28 May, after I removed some content I deemed irrelevant from a Benfica related page, I was once again accused of censorship by him. I explained what happened here, and two other users agreed with me that the information deleted was not particularly relevant and could be stated elsewhere. I thought that was the second time it happened and I told the user I would report him if he did it a third time, a warning he disregarded with a silly reply. But, to my surprise, after reading the other comment he wrote towards me, I found out I had miscounted and the episode of 28 May was, in fact, the third time he made similar suggestions. The other two times were here and here.

I do not mind being called a liar. I do not like having my contribution being constantly reverted but I understand that my opinions can be and sometimes are wrong. I have accepted that if I do not take the higher road with this user, by ending or avoiding conflicts (meaning refraining from replying/contributing), these will not be solved peacefully. I am a tolerant person. Now, what I simply cannot consent to is being accused of censorship. I consider these injuries directed at me to be extremely offensive when freedom of speech is the civil liberty I value the most (for those who are not aware, Portugal lived under a dictatorship for several decades in the 20th century, a period that ended on a day that is now celebrated as Freedom Day). I value what was achieved in 1974 and I find it insulting to speak in such a frivolous way about censorship. I warned the user I would report him at strike three, so here I am.

Now, concerning the character of the user. When I started editing Benfica related articles, he was friendly towards me, to the point of expressing gratitude several times. Unfortunately, once our visions started to differ, there was a behavior change and he got more hostile. A few examples of this range from playing the "I already did this before you even edited Wikipedia" card, reverting first and creating the discussion sections in the talk pages later (while telling others to proceed the other way around), erasing without justification a link to an article I created, or simply reverting a contribution previously made only to add that information moments later (example: instead of adding the source here at 14:12, he discarded my contribution just for the very next edit at 15:16 to have the updated info reinstated with the source).

Due to the constant arguing with this user, I stopped editing several Benfica pages: the most recent season page I collaborated on is the 2017–18 one; my last edits to S.L. Benfica, S.L. Benfica B and S.L. Benfica (youth) articles date to January 2018, August 2017 and December 2018 respectively, etc. After a while, in which there were more limited but civilized interactions, that made me think that this user had changed, I am once again confronted with his defamatory remarks and his over-the-top posture.

It is not for me to evaluate, but I truly believe this user cannot and will not change his disruptive and impulsive attitude, specially in articles where he considers himself an authority and believes he has carte blanche to do whatever he wants (the disdain he showed when I warned him of a possible report supports this statement). He constantly accuses other users of having multiple accounts (to me, it happened this time and this one, among others), he edited the user pages of two other users without their consent (here and here), and he engaged in two other unacceptable personal attacks: he called me a blank file (disregarding my contributions and meaning I do not provide value to Wikipedia) and he called another user "fdp" (short for "filho da puta", literally "son of a bitch" in Portuguese).

I am pretty sure he will try to deconstruct my case and clear his image by showing that I also did several things wrong in the past. With that in mind, I only want to point out that I do not recall having a single altercation with any other user, and he has already a conflict history with several users, which granted him a one month blocking at one occasion.

With everything I presented here, I believe the moderation has reasons to intervene and I hope they do. Besteirense (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR. All I know is that, since P3DRO (talk · contribs) got permanently blocked, for harrassing and insulting me for years, Besteirense become more active again (what a coincidence) and started conflicting with me until the creation of this report. While Besteirense has been complaining, I've been improving Wikipedia. Goodbye. PS: you don't own the "2017–18 S.L. Benfica season" article. SLBedit (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

SLBedit, looking at Besteirense’s edits, it looks like this editor has been consistently making about 20 edits per quarter for at least 2 years. I don’t see much (if any) an increase after P3DRO was blocked in January 2023.

We don’t routinely and repeatedly accuse others of being sock puppets.

You should assume Besteirense is independent of P3DRO unless proven otherwise. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The feeling I have is that he started editing more Benfica-related articles after P3DRO got blocked. BTW, "a blank file (disregarding my contributions and meaning I do not provide value to Wikipedia)" is a complete lie; it wasn't "blank file", but "BlankFile", which is a user from serbenfiquista.com SLBedit (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No, Be QuietAL728 hasn't retired; actually, he continues very active in Portuguese football-related bios (it seems he can't quit Wikipedia), the only difference is that he gave up on his previous accounts, and exposes his IP addresses like he did before the account creation. PS: User is back with another account since December 2022. SLBedit (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@A. B.: I find it very odd that Besteirense knows so much about my interactions with P3DRO. It's pretty obvious the two are related (otherwise, why would Besteirense be so interesting in defending PEDRO?), and I'm not saying they are sock accounts! SLBedit (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As for the "thanks", so what? I also gave them to P3DRO and other users. SLBedit (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The "long-time disruptive user" (LOL) has contributed more to Wikipedia than many other users, and has reverted vandalism (and reported it) countless times. Calling me that is an offense. SLBedit (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was Besteirense who accused me of wanting to have the "last edit" (sic) on articles – a way of trying to limit my contributions to Wikipedia – while he did/does exactly that in the 2017–18 S.L. Benfica season, article which he created. SLBedit (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This report is the perfect example of cherry picking. SLBedit (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out three things: first, the accusations of being a sock puppet only stopped after A. B. called the accuser to reason. I guess that is already a tiny win.

Second, I was not defending P3DRO or his behavior; I just used his example (one of many) to prove that the target of my report does not always contribute to this environment with good content, or calling someone a "fdp" is a positive interaction? What is the excuse that justifies and leaves unpunished the author of this personal attack? What about vandalizing Be QuietAL728's user page, is that quality content?

And third, moving right past from the nervous attempts to divert the attention from what is really important, I will make the goal of my complain crystal clear: I did not wrote that SLBedit did not had an overall positive contribution to Wikipedia; I have shown, through my example (again, one of many) that his attitude does not allow other users to have better contributions, namely in Benfica related pages, either by having their words reverted by someone who does not assume good faith or by lack of participation (I mentioned my self-imposed ban on several pages).

Post-scriptum: six years from 2017 to 2023. So, yes, it has been a long time; no offense there. Besteirense (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"his attitude does not allow other users to have better contributions" is another lie. If a contribution is perfect, I'll leave it. If it's good and can be improved, I'll improve it. If it doesn't improve anything or is vandalism, I'll revert it. You are simply digging up the past – all that was settled a long time ago – because you can't stand me improving your contributions. SLBedit (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything wrong there, but I will fix that for you. Here's a 2-in-1 example of what a lie is: you wrote you knew I had become more active when another user got blocked. You clearly did not knew because it was not true, yet you consciously chose to write that.

I had to go to the past fetch examples of your misbehavior because I do not know when will be the next time you will accuse me of censorship or what pieces of content will you remove. Like Wikipedia, I too cannot predict the future.

Adding information with no real encyclopedic significance is not making an improvement, and neither is reinstating the same information you previously deleted (guess what, x-y+y is still equal to the value that was already there). Removing the link to the page I created from the Taça de Portugal article is the perfect example of what you call "improving [my] contribution" but, in reality, was just a pointless and revengeful revert. Besteirense (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• SLBedit, hi. You both are long-term contributors. It's not conducive to proactive editing if you allude to another editor as a possible sock. I don't want you to get me wrong, but either take the report to SPI or immediately stop these accusations and consider this a final warning. Once again, please don't take these words negatively. My intent is to ensure you guys discuss proactively. To issues of content, I see both your sides and would tend to encourage further proactive article talk-page discussions that lead to consensus. Dispute resolution is a good way to go if you both don't succeed in gaining consensus. Start with this and let's see how it goes. Once again, no sock accusation any more please. Thanks, Lourdes 10:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes, thank you for your reply. I noticed you and A. B. focused mainly on the sock puppet accusations, which to me were the least important points of my argument because I know he has no case there. After "[seeing] both sides" do you really think that finding a consensus in the other subjects is possible here? If I suggest this user should be temporarily blocked for offensive remarks (accusing me of censorship, calling "son of a bitch" to someone, vandalizing user pages, comparing me to a random user from a den of fanatics, etc) do you think he will agree with the penalty? If I argue this user should have a permanent zero-revert rule so that he learns to respect other user's contributions should I expect him to just accept the punishment? Or none of the above justifies any kind of (severe) intervention from the moderation and it is I that should agree with that? Besteirense (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Besteirense, if SLBedit hints at your being a sock even once, he will be immediately blocked. While you might not realise the import of this, SLBedit would. Also, this discussion is fruitful to document that we have advised you both strongly to resume discussions with no personal attack and with civil behaviour on relevant talk pages, and to take the dispute resolution steps in case of lack of consensus. In case the conversations between you and SLBedit turn significantly negative again in the future, or results in edit warring, please come back here and link to this discussion. That is all for now. Let's hope it improves... if not, we cross the bridge at that time. Thanks, Lourdes 04:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that this discussion was important, since the user finally stopped those silly accusations. But, since the only point taken into account by the moderation was the sock puppet one, I will remove from the report the information that was not addressed. If that is not allowed, and I am not aware that it is not, then I would ask you to revert my last contribution to this section. Thank you. Besteirense (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

How on earth is removing, in good faith, a retired template vandalism? From Template:Retired: "Retiring implies that you will not resume editing at any later date." That user is just gaming the system by creation accounts, "retiring" and coming back with another account(s) and/or IP address(es). SLBedit (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes, does Besteirense, if SLBedit hints at your being a sock even once, he will be immediately blocked apply here? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor, I'm talking about another user, Be QuietAL728, which "retired" years ago (the account is retired but the person/user isn't). I was accused of vandalism because I removed a retired template from that user's page years ago. In short: "99.9% of your edits aren't vandalism, m'kay. You edited another user's page? Block him!" SLBedit (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes DIYeditor. But which diff are you referring to? Thanks, Lourdes 05:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps vandalism is not the right word but you removing the template is clearly inappropriate. I'm not going to read the long discussion above nor any of those that lead up to it, but I assume someone has told you it was inappropriate so it is concerning IMO that you still don't seem to understand you should not be removing the retired template from another editor's userpage without their explicit permission or community consensus.

Personally as a strong believer in the 'indefinite doesn't mean for ever, just until it's no longer needed' mantra I see no harm indefinitely blocking you, if you've made it clear you're going to continue to remove the retired template from other editor's userpages inappropriately although I know others will feel we should wait until you've done it one more time.

Either way no matter how good your other editing is, if you're going to continue to edit inappropriately occasionally you shouldn't be surprised when you're blocked. A fair number of blocks are over that small percentage of an editor's edits which are bad which we can't stop them doing otherwise when their other edits are good.

In the unlikely even no one has told you yet, if you feel the editor should not be using the retired template since they are still actively editing then you are welcome to talk to them about it. If they refuse to remove it then you can bring it up somewhere perhaps here although frankly editors significantly editing while they've marked themselves as retired is something ANI tends to treat as 'not good but not worth taking action over' from the few times it's came up that I can recall.

You may have more luck if it's not actually the retired template that is a concern but an editor using an account serially which is also complicated but can lead to illicit WP:SOCK concerns if the editor is perceived as trying to evade scrutiny. Of course you will need good evidence they are the same editor.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Lourdes, his modus operandi revolves around accusing other users, who disagree with his view, of having multiple accounts. Other examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. Here, he accused a user of having 18! sock accounts, and got an " Unrelated to each other" reply for 17! of them. He shoots everywhere with those remarks to see if any accusation sticks. And why does he do it? That is simple: if he gets into conflicts with three or four users (each of them with multiple accounts), it's possible that it's them who are at fault, but if instead of only three or four he has problems with fifteen or twenty unrelated users, then it is the constant that should probably be blamed.

Regarding the general agreement of content: if you check the FC Porto article's revision history, you can find 16 reverts to this user for "no consensus". He did not care about the outcome of the talk page discussion and consistently re-added information, twice with the biased summary "Restored facts about the most corrupt club in the world". Hoping to reach a consensus with this user is, in my opinion, a futile exercise. Besteirense (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Theonewithreason's behaviour on Talk:Serbia, WP:STONEWALLING, either dishonesty or competence issues, making false claims and baseless accusations

I made this edit on Serbia adding a link to crime in Serbia under the ″see also″ section, which was reverted by Theonewithreason with edit summary ″rv per Wp:undue, see lack of this assertion in other countries i.e USA,Russia,United Kingdom,Germany etc″ here.

I was a bit baffled how a mere link could be ″undue″, so I started a discussion on Talk:Serbia, mentioning that in fact their examples of countries used in their edit summary do contain links to their respective crime articles, with the exception of Russia (which at the time did not have such a link, but now does). Soon after making the edit and starting the thread, I discovered the existence of a ″law and criminal justice″ section that I had previously missed, and changed my stance to that being the location the link should go to, which would be only logical for readers given that law of Serbia is also linked there. The discussion then turned to Serbia's amount of crime with TOWR claiming low rates of certain crimes means the link is undue, and that including it means ″giving a false weight to an article that crime in Serbia is something way more common than in other countries″, with me pointing out that even taking WP:DUE in account Serbia does have notable instances of crime, such as being behind only Russia in Europe when it comes to organized crime rates, and two highly reported on mass shootings recently taking places within days of each other etc.

I rather quickly sensed the discussion wasn't going anywhere, with TOWR claiming it is already ″covered″ because the Serbia article contains a link to Index of Serbia-related articles at the bottom of the article, that in turn contains the link to the crime article, which I argued is the opposite of easy access for readers per MOS:BUILD when there is already a relevant section on the article. Because of this, I started an RfC in hopes of more uninvolved input. Eventually another editor responded and made the same point I had made above about the ″law and criminal justice″ section and ″law of Serbia″ link, I respond to them confirming that is how I was thinking as well, and that was the point where for whatever reason TOWR decides to claim that I was not, instead insisting I was still advocating for the link to be added to the ″see also″ section at the bottom″. Like most others, I don't like people misrepresenting what I say, and thankfully Wikipedia has an excellent page history feature making it easy to fact check who said what, so I replied that they're wrong and my stance has been from almost the beginning that the link should go to the relevant body section, when they doubled down it started to become increasingly difficult to assume good faith but I figured possibly there's language issues, which they also denied and threw in a baseless false accusation of ″gaming the system″ (for adding a link to a crime article in a section covering law and criminal justice, seriously?). If it isn't a language barrier, it's either lying or competence issues, so when I continue to call out their false claims about what I am advocating for they start accusing me of ″personal attacks″. I find it bizarre behaviour to lie about what someone is saying, and then suddenly victimize yourself and accuse them of personal attacks when you call out their lie, then again the whole situation is bizarre in general.

Overall, I suspect nationalistic motivations are getting in the way of easy access to relevant content for Wikipedia readers, which is what it should be the priority, not pretending countries are crime free. This behaviour over a link I think is a sign of a WP:TENDENTIOUS approach to editing the article, not to mention interacting with others during content disputes. I have included the more notable diffs but I think the full discussion(s) should be read for a full view of the gymnastics being performed to keep the link off the article. --TylerBurden (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This should go as WP:Boomerang and that is why I am countering with report against Tylerburden who obviously has intentions to clear away people with other opinions, first things first I am entitled to cast my vote on RfC without getting insulted and attacked, which Tylerburden did, second TylerBurden first posted crime in Serbia on see also section, then started a RfC trying to push their agenda, I have clearly stated that there is a balancing problem since we do not have this on other articles, and opposed my vote, editor then continued noting that I am lying and "defending" Serbian image, which I find ridiculous. Overall I have right to cast my vote on talk page if RfC is opened without getting insulted or casted WP: Aspersion against me. Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 21:22, 06 June 2023 (UTC)

User TylerBurden personal attacks

TylerBurden has started a RfC on Serbia talk page [[158]], which I respond with oppose, since then editor obviously has some issues with my objection, which I clearly stated why I am against it, after which they started to attack me, calling me a liar few times [[159]] and that I am falsely victimise myself [[160]], I have repeated several times that my vote is because of balancing issues, since we do not have this on other countries i.e Sweden but editor has some opinion that I am "protecting" image of Serbia [[161]] or that I have a language barrier. I believe that this includes several WP:Personal attack issues, since I am entitled to add my vote however I choose without being attacked so I would like that someone addressed this. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:23, 06 June 2023 (UTC)

• Theonewithreason, let the RfC continue. Let others comment. TylerBurden, if you don't mind me saying, this is not so egregious as to warrant an ANI visit. Your issue is in a standard dispute resolution space.
• I would suggest to both of you to take it easy, let the RfC continue. Discussing about why crime (or a link thereof) should or should not be included in a country's Wikipedia page, is an editorial decision, not administrative. Don't use terms like lying, tendentious, nationalistic, unless you mean to evoke a negative response. There are alternative terms that can be used diplomatically to convey the same meaning. But you know better Tyler. Come back, any of you, if the issue escalates to the level of ANI. Thanks, Lourdes 08:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes I don't make accusations lightly much less reports, it is not so much the content dispute itself that is the issue but Theonewithreason's attempts to misrepresent the situation and accuse me of "gaming the system". Those are both behavioural issues, and then playing victim and complaining about personal attacks when that behavour is called out is problematic also, especially on an article like Serbia that is under contentious topics. Note how TOWR in response to this report simply continues the same behaviour, not actually addressing their misrepresentation of my suggestion and instead doubling down on their "victim of personal attacks" approach. If they had apologized when they made false claims about my suggestion, this escalation wouldn't have been necessary. But it is one thing to make a mistake, it is another to double down, deny it and make more false claims when confronted about it. TylerBurden (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi TylerBurden, you were accused of gaming (or a reference to gaming was given) after you made this remark. You alluded to lack of language skills, CIR, lack of ability to read the title...etc all in one go against the other editor. You are an experienced editor and your RfC is well-placed and logical. You also know why we should comment on the content and not character of people. At this point, if you had come to this desk with clean hands, where your discussions took the higher ground and the other editor was the one throwing accusations, the discussions out here would be different. But that is not the case. I will again suggest that take the higher ground in discussions; don't verbally duel or accuse other editors of being liars (character) but call out lack of factual basis (content), don't accuse other editors of being not able to read (character), but perhaps mention that they may have misunderstood the focus of the RfC (content). And so on. I am not trying to patronise you as I am no guru of executive communication. But the next time you come back here and we are able to assess that you followed this guideline and the other editor did not, we'll take appropriate warnings/actions. Thanks, Lourdes 04:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes I am not sure if you are actually looking at the situation, because I did try to assume good faith and brought up the possibility of a language issue being the cause of misunderstanding, which was denied straight away. Why does this editor have a right to misrepresent me? Do you see that the editor openly said the link shouldn't be added because "it makes Serbia look like it has more crime than other countries"? That is maintaining image, which if anything would be "gaming the system" through tendentious editing. I never called them a liar, because I don't know them, I said that they lied in this instance, which is what appears to be the case since they denied misunderstanding it. So what else are they doing then? Please provide diffs if you are going to support this editors accusations towards me. TylerBurden (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

DRN and the RFC

User:TylerBurden submitted a request to DRN, which appeared not to be a request for moderated discussion, but for more participation in the RFC. I have closed the DRN request because this WP:ANI thread is also active. Neutrally worded mentions of the RFC at WikiProject Serbia and WikiProject Crime would probably be helpful. Do User:TylerBurden and User:Theonewithreason want to resolve a content dispute via an RFC, or to argue about conduct? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Cahnc‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Cahnc‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user with some good faith contributions that seems suddenly intensely focused on removing sourced content regarding the Catholic identity of largely Italian persons. After being warned and notified of several policies that their editing was running up against, the editor proceeded to continue reverting, violating the 3RR rule at least twice, including once after being notified of the rule. Request action to catch their attention, as they have responded to warnings by blanking their talk page and carrying on with their DEing. Actions may be those of a sock, considering the relative familiarity of editor with some other policies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Pbritti seems suddenly intensely focused on undoing my edits. This included repeatedly restoring extremely poor English like "He started also a collaboration...". They are clearly not really looking at what they are reverting. The fact that the majority of Italians are Catholics is not remarkable, and there are very few articles about Italians, or anyone else, where their religion needs to be stated. I have not made more than three reverts at any article. Cahnc (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You are engaged in edit-warring, ignoring requests to adhere to policy regarding both sourced content and MOS (the latter referring to Catholic Church). If believe Italians should, as a blanket rule, not have their Catholic identity mentioned despite its presence in sourcing, then seek consensus after your WP:BOLD edits are reverted. Again, clearly an editor who isn't new. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the policy regarding sourced content that I am not adhering to? And why have you claimed that I broke a rule which I have at no point broken? Cahnc (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The WP:BOLD guideline is generally understood as giving through to discussion after someone objects (see WP:BRD). I'm using 3RR as shorthand but more appropriately I should have linked WP:Edit warring, as that was the behavior you were undertaking despite my repeated efforts to encourage you to discuss, both in edit summaries and on your talk page (which you repeatedly blanked). ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You clearly wanted to have an edit war; you were the one who started indiscriminately reverting my edits. And now when I ask for what policy you think I am not adhering to, you link to a page which says This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy. The changes I have made were basic common sense. I did not expect anyone to attack me for them as you have done. Cahnc (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

BRD is an explanatory essay on paragraph three of BOLD's lead. I am not attacking you, though I do suspect you of policy-violating behavior despite apparently knowing more than the average new editor about policy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Pbritti, some of the edits of Cahnc are good. Can you please list the exact diffs you have problems with? Lourdes 08:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes: several are linked in my first post but additionally: [162], [163], and [164]. There are other articles and on every article it was multiple reversions but the basic gist is that Cahnc deleted referenced statements about people's religious identity (and a bolded alternative name) then refused to engage even when policy was cited. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pbritti, we can only focus on diffs that you specifically post, and can't throw a wide net. The diffs that you provide seem ok. What is the problem in them? If they removed the religious identity, did you undertake any steps in dispute resolution, such as opening up talk page discussions in the articles concerned? (Edit summaries don't equate to discussions; neither do talk page conversations on user talk pages, when the issue is related to particular articles). I will suggest that you open up talk page discussions and also use the standard DR route to sort out editorial issues here. And try to be congenial in your discussions with them. In case consensus is ignored after following DR, come back here with a link to this discussion. Thanks, Lourdes 05:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no mandate that you can only look at diffs that are linked, and even then I linked several example diffs when they crossed thresholds or responded adversely to being notified regarding standing policies and guidelines. Additionally, you may have misunderstood: this is about many articles (which were linked in the diffs), not just a particular article. This is disruption, not a content dispute. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Pbritti, if some other administrator wishes to do a wider investigation, they will do. The three diffs you showcased do not show any disruption and show lack of initiating talk page discussions from your side. If there are other many articles, list the diffs here please and I can review them. For sorting out issues related to religious identities' issue of Cahnc en masse, open up a discussion on the relevant noticeboard. Lourdes 06:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes, linking all the diffs probably wouldn't convince you given I've already detailed the problem and provided easy access to many of the pages involved. If someone else wants to provide input, that would be appreciated. Also, I figure you do it as a polite courtesy (thank you!), but I'm watching this discussion so you don't have to tag me. I should've mentioned that before, sorry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked Cahnc, this is WP:BKFIP, again.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that makes me feel a little better about my sock radar going off. Thanks for looking into this, Ponyo and Lourdes! ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Triantares at Elive

Triantares (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Elive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

​WP:NOTHERE, WP:MEAT, WP:DISRUPTIVE, and WP:SPA for Elive, which barely surved Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elive_(3rd_nomination), by withdrawal. I have attempted to be as helpful as I can be, but am not getting through, and they are only making it more personal. I think a block from at least Elive is fitting.

• deleted info from lead that is consistent with a cited review summarized in body.
• personal attacks on my Talk, if mediocre compared to some.
• adding uncited info to article. (reverted)
• adding uncited info

-- Yae4 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Yae4, thank you for your report. I see Triantares engaging in talk page discussions civilly. What might be the issue? The diffs you have provided don't seem to have anything wrong.
  • deleted info from lead -- I don't see any reliable verifiable source backing the claim that was deleted. Deletion seems appropriate here (please let me know what I am missing).
  • personal attacks... -- I see an unrequired statement where Triantares accuses you of vandalising articles, once. Beyond that, there is no personal attack in the statement.
  • adding uncited info -- Just one day before this edit, the article talk page had a host of editors showcasing the reference for this information; and you also participated in the same one day before. Why would you call this "adding uncited info"?
  • adding uncited info -- Same query from me.

I will wait for your answers as I don't see any disruption here. Thanks, Lourdes 08:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)r

Thanks and sorry for being here. FYI, More background on WP:MEAT: mentioned at deletion discussion, and quoted at Triantares Talk. Off wiki, in Elive forum, for years, the same usernames, Triantares, TheTechRobo3641 (signing as TheTechRobo) , and Thanatermesis the Elive developer discussed how to go about ..."abusing WP for PR (which in fact you are :shocked: )" a statement made by Triantares. Regardless, Triantares refuses to acknowledge having COI at Elive. To their credit, Technorobo and Thanatermesis have declared.

• Deleted info from lead: Article says, "In 2010, ... However, this version required a payment for installation to hard disk which seriously impacted the initial popularity and was subsequently changed " and "Jesse Smith of Distrowatch had difficulty and delay obtaining a no-cost download," The lead statement summarized these sourced criticisms.
• Personal attacks: "You made a point of searching critical articles and selectively quoting those" - false, personal, assumption; accusation of vandalizing -false, personal; more serious, hounding accusation: "most certainly hounding me as a person." - false, personal; "Your disdainful, condescending comments there and elsewhere". I reflected on how I would receive the comments I made about the history of the Elive article, if I were Triantares, and concluded they take what I said about the article history, and wasting time (with years of failed drafts and AfDs, personally because they are, without doubt, closely connected with Elive, personally.
• Adding uncited info, and "host of editors" on article talk page: The link is to a self-published, brief announcement at Elive. It could be used as a primary source, sure, but on that basis alone they want to add a large portion of that announcement to Wikipedia, and also add it to the lead? Host of editors: TheTechRobo3641 (TheTechRobo) is a self-declared moderator for Elive, Triantares, and me, makes 3.
• I considered attempting to mentor or guide them, or refer them to WP:EDITREQ as done elsewhere, but had no hope of Triantares paying attention to that, as they will not even acknowledge having close ties and COI. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment and revised suggestion: at Triantares user Talk in response to being notified of ANI, they said, with other mild insults, "I doubt anybody is going to really read into your points/links there in and will probably 'OK' your demand, as it's the easiest path to take." Let's consider this a warning, and drop this ANI (and prove them wrong, again). -- Yae4 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, quick suggestions.

• If Triantares has refuted his CoI with Elive, it's not your or my place to mention this CoI again in any other forum except the COIN desk. So would request you to desist from mentioning the connect. You can quote your points about SPA there.
• Second, the statement deleted from the lead has no reliable source backing the claim. So irrespective of the statement being one that summarised the article, there is no reason it should stay (unless you can point the reliable source).
• Third, Wikipedia has a higher tolerance for statements that you have quoted, which are not personal attacks literally. They are presumably false statements and bad faith and Triantares should not make them. And repeated statements without backing with diffs may get them escalating warnings and perhaps a later block if that continues. But this is just a hypothesis (in case they aren't able to showcase diffs backing their allegations against you).
• Fourth, your claim of "adding uncited info" goes against your acceptance that there was a primary source backing the claim. Of course, primary sources cannot be used in most cases. But that is an editorial decision to be taken up by discussions on the talk page, not administratively.
• Lastly, why did you withdraw your AfD nomination of Elive which was on its way to be deleted? May I suggest take the article to AfD once more quoting this message of mine? And this time, I would request you to please not withdraw the nomination which was bound to be deleted. I will chip in with my comments there once you raise the AfD. Thanks, Lourdes 05:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• "Second, the statement deleted from the lead has no reliable source backing the claim." I don't know why you say this unless you don't consider the two Distrowatch cites reliable; I do, usually. No source is perfect.
• Thanks for the other advice.
• Why withdraw Elive AfD, several reasons:

• Primarily, as stated there, I learned there are several review citations listed at Distrowatch[165], which were not in the article. One is LWN,[166] which WP:RSN is recently, with few participants, judging mostly reliable. LWN was harshly critical - "Beautiful but disappointing", and "It's a pity that the commercial purpose of the distribution is covered up", and thus was not cited at Elive. Plus 3 Distrowatch reviews over the years. I had not initially seen those, because originators of the drafts and articles had only vaguely referenced Distrowatch and the authors' reviews in other publications, and I hadn't looked carefully there. After I did, I changed my opinion.
• Wikipedia has numerous other Debian-based distros with articles, and most of them are nearly as poorly sourced. Yes, I understand that is said to be a different issue.
• Observing how other similar articles, on products of major companies, like MagicOS recently, get posted to Wikipedia, and mostly tolerated. Yes, different issue (and I will probably remove the Prod if no one else does).
• I've seen another editor who explicitly said they use AfD to motivate article improvement. That's not my preference, or hadn't been, but it does seem to get results, somewhat, sometimes.
• AfDs IMO seem random in outcome, depending on who happens to take an interest, and how they feel about the article, usually without any quantitative methods of rating articles or sources.
• I felt some empathy for the developer and supporters, who don't understand why they can have Wikipedia articles in 17 other languages, with nearly zero citations, but cannot have an article in English Wikipedia. I now think I understand. Many other languages represent smaller markets... Maybe small companies should also get a break at English WP, even if they can't afford large enough advertising budgets to get into more widely recognized publications.

Thanks for your time. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NLT and WP:OUTING by 10bucchr

I believe this edit by 10bucchr constitutes a legal threat and possible outing. I'd like an administrator to review and take appropriate action. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is it a legal threat, I made no threat at all?

In what way is it an outing? The vandal (RabbitWolf) admitted to being Ian Erasmus - see his talk page: "I do have the official charge sheet in my possession. And I do know this case inside and out as I am the one who built this case." He has a major conflict of interest as he was fired by the company and has stated that is in legal proceedings with it.

An administrator has already reviewed it and upheld my removal of the vandalism. 10bucchr (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this amounts to outing, and "warning" is too vague to count as a legal threat. Your comment here, however, really clouds the issue and forces me to act. 10bucchr, this is not the internet: you can't just throw accusations around. I've already asked you to disclose any conflict of interest you might have, and you failed to do so, and you continued here to make accusations. I will leave it to another admin to decide if you should be sanctioned; for now I find it difficult to see how you are a net positive for Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

And if all this wasn't clear to you: do NOT name people. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur with the administrator that RabbitWolf's editing was problematic. But your initial interaction with the user (This is a warning to stop adding the entire charge sheet to the Sasol main page) has a distinctly legalistic tone to it. And your identification of a user name with a real world person, where the user themself has not made such an admission, is most certainly WP:OUTING. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies x2 to @Drmies and @WikiDan61, I didn't get to stating my conflict fast enough. I used to be employed by Sasol but no longer have any connection, but I guess it still counts as conflicting interest. I won't edit that page again.

I again disagree with the legalistic complaint but do apologize about the naming - I realize not knowing the rules is no excuse. Although my initial (and only) interaction did not identify him - it only associated him? Is that still against the rules? 10bucchr (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

10bucchr, I am not going into the details here, but please just take my word for it. Read WP:OUTING and just trust that I saw enough reason to act. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Boulton and Park

Does anyone know what this string of edits? is about? It seems there's a content dispute raging, and these edits archive lengthy discussions which have mostly happened in the last ten days - which I don't think is what archives are meant to be for. I would have reverted, but I wondered if this was an admin action for some reason so I brought it here. I'm not involved in the actual dispute and I don't have an opinion. But the dispute doesn't look so heated that it needs suppression. AndyJones (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

A content dispute perhaps, although it’s pretty trivial. An ANI issue, I doubt. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Andy, you should really take that up with the editor that archived that stuff. This board is for really problematic behaviour not amenable to normal remedies. ——A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you. AndyJones (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

User:R_bnks section blanking

The user R_bnks seems to be on a section deletion campaign against articles about musical instrument brands and models.

They have excised sections about notable players of particular models or brands, and have included the same edit summary "unverified/poorly verified namedropping, list of names without encyclopedic (but only promotional) relevance" for all of them.

This also comes after a warning from User:Drmies about their editing potentially being WP:COI. Agentdoge (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the look of this. They've gone on a spree of removing sourced content that adds worth to the article, and has completely ignored A.B's comments on their talk page. I think they're annoyed that their likely-COI edits didn't work, and they're taking their frustration out on articles. I think the standard offer is needed here. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

This user has not edited since I left them the first of my 3 notes. I'd like to think I was a persuasive peacemaker; more likely this editor found something better to do.

I hope they'll come back and make useful edits.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Those looked like useful edits, at least the ones I checked. Alice Cooper's guitarist used a particular model of guitar for an EP? That is undue. Maybe worth a mention on that EPs page... Sort of sad someone removed fan cruft from some articles, and was pushed away from further edits. Very Average Editor (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content at Royan Institute

There is an ongoing issue at Royan Institute; User:Katrina masbin has repeatedly inserted unsourced, improperly sourced, and promotional content. Most recent diff: here, particularly the section "Industrialization of Research" and content on cooperations in "Research Institute". The user was previously blocked temporarily for inserting unsourced content. They also show a disregard for applicable policy, as evidenced by the discussions on their talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Actualcpscm (talk • contribs) 11:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The article has seen multiple sock and meat puppets and protection and has been overly promotional since many years. There is no credible notability that is evident amongst the overly promotional material that has been put in. I have speedied the article for now. Thanks, Lourdes 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not none of them, I'm just going to provide information about the Royan Institute. That's all; I'm not going to advertise and Please tell me about some sources that were unclear to you so that I can explain about it and about the part of it that mentions about my issues.

Please help me and return the page . Please give me a chance .Katrina masbin (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Please believe me that I didn't and don't intend to add any kind of advertising issues and I only want to inform, and about "Industrialization of Research ", it was only a part of informing about Royan Institute and its tasks and so on. Please tell me about some sources that were unclear to you so that I can explain about it and about the part of it that mentions about my issues.

Please help me and return the page . Katrina masbin (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Forget the page, move on to other pages that can be created. If you are convinced that the institute is notable and you are totally invested in creating this and only this article, then share the reference details with me on my talk page, so I can assess whether there's weight in your request. Thanks, Lourdes 16:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

AlhyarJy and maintenance templates

AlhyarJy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently removing maintenance templates from Robert Budi Hartono without resolving the issues they relate to, despite a couple of warnings at User talk:AlhyarJy#June 2023. Can someone have a word? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

AlhyarJy, final chance to explain before getting blocked. Cordless Larry, why wasn't a discussion started at the article talk page? Thanks, Lourdes 07:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It was quite a while ago that I originally added the template, Lourdes, but I wasn't aware that a talk page post was necessary - the template doesn't mention it and what's required to address it is pretty self-explanatory, I'd have thought. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry thanks for the response. A talk page discussion (or at least your opening of it) leaves no doubt that you tried to discuss the issue with the person. Edit summaries, reverts are not self-explanatory as they carry very little context, especially when users are new or of non-English backgrounds. In such a case that you had opened up talk page discussions without any participation from the other party, they would have gotten blocked without my having to give them another chance to explain. That's it. Thanks, Lourdes 06:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite done for now. Once they respond positively on their talk page, we'll extend a lifeline. Thanks, Lourdes 06:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV edits by Poiupoiu80

Poiupoiu80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Account is being used purely for unexplained deletions with an apparent nationalist POV. This includes

• Removing mentions of defeats relating to Libya's predecessor states; e.g. [167], [168], [169].
• Removing or replacing mentions of other ethnic terms; e.g. [170], [171].
• Other nonsensical deletions like this and a truly ludicrous edit-war over deletion of the word "Roman" at Severan dynasty: [172], [173], [174].

Two warnings on their user talk page have gone ignored and they haven't provided a single edit summary this whole time. Their edit-warring continued today, after the last warning: [175], [176].

Other context: this also looks like a clear case of WP:BLOCKEVADE related to blocked sockpuppet Las Davas and their sockpuppeteer Samira819. I reported it to SPI two weeks ago with evidence, along with other suspected socks, but unfortunately things there are so backed up that many cases haven't been touched since. I'm hoping this account, at least, can be blocked in the meantime, given the clear pattern of vandalism, which is getting tedious. R Prazeres (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• R Prazeres, for the sock thing, please raise at SPI. For now, I have blocked for a week pending a response that they understand the issue. Thanks, Lourdes 07:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, that helps. The SPI is already open, I'm hoping for a long-term solution there. R Prazeres (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment by IP 2001:8003:2964:AF00:EC5F:C189:8DB0:6EE2

Please check comment by user 2001:8003:2964:AF00:EC5F:C189:8DB0:6EE2 on Talk:Fraser Island. 203.8.131.32 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like an upset elderly resident. Other editors have explained Wikipedia’s approach and mission. Not sure what more can/should be done. There isn’t any overt racism or hate in their comments. Park3r (talk)

2 articles about the same subject

I would like you to pay attention to these two articles.: Varosi (Edessa) and Varosi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.65.244 (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

We have Varosi, which appears to be translated from el:Βαρόσι (Έδεσσα), and Varosi (Edessa), a copy of the former, now tagged for deletion as a content fork, while the original article is flagged as a copyright violation. I'm not clear on the violation. Translating articles from another project is fine, it just needs to be attributed. If the original article on el.wp is itself a copyright violation then that's a different matter, but we need more information. I will notify MarVas83 and VasiliadouMps. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

On Talk:Varosi, an IP asserts that the Greek article of which this is a translation is "based in copyright violation"; it isn't at all clear what it is meant to be a copyright violation of. The url listed in the copyvio template is to Earwig's copyvio detector ([177]) which is not returning any evidence of copyvio to me. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

However, there doesn't seem to be acknowledgement of the translation anywhere, which will need adding – if I understand WP:CWW rightly, that needs to be in an edit summary (presumably this can be done retroactively with a dummy edit?) and it would probably also be worth sticking {{translated page}} on the talkpage? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would do as you suggest and remove the copyvio banner, except that it says in big, bold letters "do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or VRT agent", so it seems that I am not qualified to do so. Should the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" place such restrictions on who can perform certain edits? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The link to Earwig is out of date, as the copyvio at elwiki has already been dealt with. Using Earwig on the diff before the deletions looks like this, an 80% match to a page on Edessia.gr. Both enwiki articles were created by the same editor who added the copyvio at elwiki. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

31 files used on Varosi have been deleted by User:Túrelio as copyvios, so that could indicate a wider problem. Also a report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems should have been filed when the article was tagged as a copyvio, but this was not done. TSventon (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the copyright problems page is semi-protected and it was an IP making the report. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

the copyvio gives 1% copyright for Βαρόσι (Έδεσσα). Please restore the article Varosi Edessa VasiliadouMps (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted the copy at Varosi (Edessa). It is not OK to respond to a copyvio concern by creating a new copy of the same content. I have not investigated the validity of the original copyvio claim. —Kusma (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The topic appears to be notable, so I have replaced the text of Varosi with a new referenced stub. This entailed removing the copyvio template, but the old version is also far too close to this web page. So I hope my mucking about doesn't interfere with revision deletion of the versions up to this one (VasiliadouMps requesting speedy deletion). Yngvadottir (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

the the original copyvio pf Βαρόσι (Εδεσσα) is 1% coryright. please restore the article Varosi Edessa VasiliadouMps (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, VasiliadouMps, I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying your text was not copyvio? Meanwhile, I've struggled through the instructions for the template asking for earlier versions to be revision-deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I guess what the user really means is that the Varosi (Edessa) article gets restored and the Varosi one gets deleted instead. Regarding the corpygith violation, now, please allow me to clarify a few things. Indeed, upon its creation in el@wiki the article in question had a surprisingly high copyrights violation percentage of around 87%, per Earwig's copyvio detector. However, VasiliadouMps, spent quite some time working on it, arriving to a point where copyrights violation percentage dropped down to around 1%. Meanwhile, the account that you're mentioning at the beginning, "MarVas83", was indefinitely blocked in el@wiki as it belonged to the same user, according to their own claim and evidence. Of course, this is not sock puppetry case, but just a new-beginner user who needs some time to learn and adapt to Wikipedia and its different rules, policies, guidelines etc. 🙂 🏺 ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ 🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 08:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

thank you VasiliadouMps (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Εὐθυμένης. I've just looked at the history of the article on el.wikipedia, and I don't see any revision deletions, and since I can't read Greek, I can't tell whether there are statements in edit summaries about scrubbing copyvio. I assume the English article created by MarVas83, who you say is an undeclared alt of VasiliadouMps, was a translation of this version or a slightly earlier one? Can you tell us whether that version had been scrubbed clean of copyvio? However, while copyright violation is obviously a serious concern on all the projects, we operate independently and what matters here on en.wikipedia is whether there's copyvio text in the history of the English-language article. I saw overly close paraphrasing and some actual copying, hence I wrestled with that template and it's now up to the patrolling admin to determine whether to delete the revisions. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I understand your concern, however, please allow me to explain that, unfortunately, this is not a common practice among most el@wiki admins (btw I'm part of the local admins of the said language version). I know that we should be doing this, however, we mostly prefer (?) to insist on the basics, meaning speedy deletion of problematic articles and files or strong push for them to be properly treated in a short timeframe in order for them not to qualify for speedy deletion. Of course, I'm oversimplyfying things here, however, I'm trying to explain why there were no deleted revisions of the article in question. In general, since we're rather a small community, that alone helps us - admins - to keep things at bay, without necessarily going as far as to delete article or file revisions. Provided, of course, that everything gets in order shortly after us informing the involved user(s) regarding the possible copyrights violation. Now, regarding the article version that you're mentioning and providing me, unfortunately, I'm afraid to tell you that the similarity report is a... surprisingly high 93,7%. 😶 However, the current version of the article drops this percentage down to... 0%. 😶 In practice, this, possibly, means (?) that this version of the article could possibly be translated-brought over here. 🏺 ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ 🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 09:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, Εὐθυμένης, Yngvadottir! I can't of course speak for the Greek Wikipedia, but in this project copyvio needs to be removed, not just copy-edited – because copy-editing it may give rise to a derivative work. My Greek is very poor, but I'm satisfied that the Greek-language page contained copyvios right from the start (from here in the first revision, here in the second). Our page also contained what appeared to be copying from some English-language web pages. I've revdeleted all but the last few revisions of the page. VasiliadouMps, please take care not to copy any non-free content into Wikipedia, even if you intend to modify it later. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Εὐθυμένης, in principle, yes, if it's not copyvio, but it would have to be in clear English and especially not a machine translation, so in practice it's easier to write an English-language article from scratch. Those websites can be used as references. If nobody else gets around to it, I'll expand my stub a little bit, but it would obviously be better done by editors who can read Greek to find better sources. My concern was that we were about to lose an article on a notable topic because of the copyvio, so I made a placeholder to serve as the basis for future work (and demonstrate notability). Yngvadottir (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Of course, you're quite right about this one, as there are quite a few sources in Greek that could be used for this article. 🙂 As for the rest, please allow me to ask for the renaming of the article to "Varosi (Edessa)" or "Varosi, Edessa", depending on the prefered typo, as "Varosi" as a term is quite often used for different old town neighbourhoods across Greece (some examples that I can think of are, notably, Trikala and Ioannina), with the exact origin of this term dating back from Byzantine (or medieval if your prefer) times. 😇 🏺 ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ 🏛️ ^{ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ} 10:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

i promise. has the article "Varosi Edessa" been restored yet? i can not see it. do you know when it will be restored? thank you VasiliadouMps (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Εὐθυμένης: My search for sources turned up one in Famagusta. The article could be moved, but there's no reason for disambiguation; we don't have any other "Varosi" articles (nor does el.wikipedia so far as I can see, although I see Wiktionary has an entry for the Hungarian városi). So better for someone who can read the sources to note in the article that there are other neighbourhoods called Βαρόσι. @VasiliadouMps: I'd feel better responding to you if I were an admin and could see the deleted first article with my own eyes, but if it was the same text, it was also copyvio. So it can't be restored. The new one should be expanded with new wording. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC) (fixed pings) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edit and removal of content in the name of edit warring by user Kautilya3

I was recently editing page on Greater Nepal for neutrality and adding reference that had long been tagged. Within few hours of the edit user:Kautilya3 came and reverted the edits giving blant explation as whitewashing. I really doubt the editor even read the added references or text. However, this is not only the incident. The same editor rapidely reverts any edits that seems are related to disputes between India and neighbouring nations, sometimes even when referenes are provided when such edit is not favouring the Indian side. Because the user is very familier with the wiki policies,he uses it harass new editors. I think no one can do anything at matters of black harassment, however, I suggest community work towards it. nirmal (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nirmaljoshi: This appears to be a content dispute and I would suggest using the article talkpage (where neither of you have posted anything so far) and dispute resolution if needed, rather than rushing to this board. Also note that when you start a discussion about an editor, you need to notify them of it. Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing & edit warring by User:BobNesh

BobNesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BobNesh has appeared at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut recently and is engaging in generally disruptive editing. However, today I noticed they canvassed editors to a discussion they started to change the stated outcome of the battle to "Russian victory" (the discussion; the canvassing at their talk page). They selectively did not notify users with opposing viewpoints (e.g., didn't notify those in Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#No, who disagreed that the battle was over). I warned them on their talk page about canvassing, and noted their canvassing at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut. BobNesh then reverted my note with "Added after the discussion was closed." There is nothing wrong with the comment that I added, which I was typing before the discussion was closed; User:Fieari, the editor who closed the discussion, themselves said "Added comment was relevant to the closure of the discussion, and acceptable for being added." BobNesh's deletion was reverted (by me and Fieari) three times, and BobNesh has now passed the 3RR limit and is edit warring (all four reverts: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th).

This is not the first time BobNesh has engaged in edit warring; they've received countless warnings on their talk page since 2016, many of which are related to edit warring (in addition to two recent ones they've removed: this and this). They've been blocked for edit warring multiple times, most recently in 2022. I will note that this is not a content dispute. I have no solution for a canvassing, edit warring user who has received numerous warnings and has been blocked multiple times, and who refuses to listen to others (removing my warning and note from their talk page, warning me twice on my talk page (for something that isn't wrong) even though I didn't do anything between both warnings). Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

First of all, it's he/him. Please, respect my pronouns. Second, the rules can't be more clear, as they are mentioned twice:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If the discussion is closed, then it is closed for everyone and no further edits should be made by anyone. Otherwise, the person mentioned should also have the right to respond in the closed thread. Plain and simple. I wasn't happy that my topic was closed, but I didn't want to respond in closed topic. Yet, Nythar made disruptive edits in closed topic that clearly violated the policy, then restored it after the disruptive edits were rightfully deleted. Nythar also refuses to listen to others (removing my warning and note from talk page) and openly threatening me: ″Delete my comment at Talk:Battle of Bakhmut one more time and we're off to WP:ANI.″

BobNesh (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so when a discussion is closed, nobody is allowed to post anything, regardless of whether a comment was being written before the discussion was closed, and regardless of the opinion of the closer (who accepted the comment and themselves did not revert it); it then becomes acceptable to violate WP:3RR, which you've done countless times in the past. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make the rule that you have knowingly violated several times. Then, let us open the topic again so I can respond to you. Why you should have the last word, written when the topic was already closed? BobNesh (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BOOMERANG, your actions can also be criticized. Nevermind, it's not BOOMERANG as they are the person in question, I'm stupid. I don't see an issue with Nythar's comment, as it was relevant. If they wanted to, they could have inserted it under the closed part of the discussion. You opening another talk page section with an open RfC on the same topic wasn't the right thing to do. This section on your talk page is very concerning, as it is an open WP:CANVASS, and warnings on your talk page suggest a long history of edit warring and other issues, including not one but four blocks. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I also maybe had relevant comment, but the topic was closed. I respected that fact, and Nythar didn't! Nythar violated the rule several times. Regarding canvassing, we should address also stealth canvassing apparently present here between you and Nythar as well stealth canvassing on Talk:Battle of Bakhmut. Or, maybe here is just a word of sockpuppetry? Frankly, can't tell which one is. BobNesh (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I didn't make this report, I have never reported anyone, although there were numerous opportunities for that. So, Nythar's actions may lead to WP:BOOMERANG, not mine. BobNesh (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Making unsubstantiated claims of canvassing and/or sockpuppetry is a very bad idea on an admin noticeboard where people can and often do block for those sorts of comments. I've never edited on Talk:Battle of Bakhmut, nor have I interacted with Nythar outside of AfD. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That is correct. In addition, there is no policy in Wikipedia that categorically states comments added after a discussion is closed can be treated as vandalism (meaning 3RR can be violated). I am not aware of any policy that states comments may never be added after a discussion is closed either. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked BobNesh for one month for edit warring. His last edit warring block was for two weeks, and he freely chose to violate the policy again. I think I got his pronouns right. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Just realised that this has been closed. I've re-opened this because I don't think this block goes far enough. This is his fifth block, and fourth for edit warring. After five blocks, I don't think BobNesh is capable of editing constructively, and as such I propose an indef block for him. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Licks-rocks: I undid your close because it failed (probably a template in the middle of the discussion caused that). Could you also keep it open until the canvassing has been addressed? Thank you. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  of course! I just left a comment on your talk page pointing out that I'd noticed the same problem. If you feel there's still an issue to be addressed, I'll leave the discussion open. ^.^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

IP continuing transphobia after account was blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 165.1.159.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

After User:Homme was blocked, this IP has repeatedly restored the transphobic comment. They also commented on the WP:AE thread, where they, like in their edit summaries, use language similar to Homme's. I posted on AE already, but haven't gotten a response, and the disruption is ongoing. Sock or not, I think they need blocked. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppets of Belteshazzar (yet again, again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sorry to be a nuisance. I'm sure that everybody is fed up with this so I'll keep it quick. Please could somebody head over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar and block the two IPs in the second report? Disruption is ongoing at a low level so it would benefit from action. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I am in communication with the WMF. They emailed me to say they are investigating but I believe it could be a long time via the investigation which I would like done faster. I had to put up with his stalking for over a year and a half so I want a global ban as soon as possible. Another issue is that many of the proxy IPs he is using are blocked for 1 or 2 weeks, that is not enough as he ends up just going back on them. They should be blocked 6 months or a year, they are proxies. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright issue

I recently uploaded an image to wikimedia, the logo for The Americna Battlefield Trust a non profit. I wasnt sure how to properly label all the fields to allow wikipedia to use it. I tried comparing it to other nonprofit/chairty logos on this site, but I cannot figure it out. Can someone help me out or point me in the direction of instructions on how to properly do this before the image is deleted? Thanks. Here is the image in question: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:American_Battlefield_Trust_logo.png Friedbyrd (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

We have no powers over Wikimedia Commons, who are a linked but very different project to us. If you visit the links in the template on the page you posted there's advice on what to do to make a file compatable with their licensing regime. — Trey Maturin™ 18:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Trey is right that we have no power here over Commons, but it looks as if the image can't be hosted there because it is copyrighted. You might, however, be able to host it here if you make a valid claim of fair use in a particular article, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. It makes no difference legally whether this is the logo for a non-profit organisation or a for-profit one. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah ha! Yes, I was looking at it from the other direction. Now you point it out, Phil, it's obvious what the actual question was. Yeah, Friedbyrd, this Wikipedia does allow non-free content within very strict rules. Commons, and many of the other Wikimedia projects, do not at all.

You'll need to brush up on our policies on logos and other non-free material, re-upload the file here directly, then clearly and directly specify why a copyrighted image can and should be used, and where. The file upload wizard can help – select Upload a non-free file when asked and fill out the details is requests from there. The leftover file at Commons will be automatically deleted later. — Trey Maturin™ 18:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I just did that instead of spending hours trying to figure out the commons thing. I didnt even know you could just upload images straight to wikipedia lol. Friedbyrd (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I am the admin who deleted the file on Commons. The reason that the file was deleted on Commons is that the file was uploaded on Commons under a claim of fair use. The file on Commons was tagged with the {{Non-free image rationale}} template; that template may well be fine to use in certain instances on the English Wikipedia, but Commons does not accept files based upon mere claims of fair use. Commons only accepts files that comply with its licensing policy, which requires that content be uploaded under allowing re-use by anyone, anytime, and for any reason.

Going forward, if you're unsure about the copyright status of a file, please feel free to create a thread at the noticeboard for media copyright questions; there are plenty of people on that board who are happy to help answer questions about copyrights and image licensing for Wikimedia projects.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Block consideration for Saucysalsa30

User:Saucysalsa30 has a history of bludgeoning editors who disagrees with them and serious concerns about this editor's overall behavior were previously raised back in December on the Administrators Noticeboard. The discussion there was quite long so be sure to go to the end where several admins including myself strongly advised Saucysalsa30 to improve their behavior. Today I noticed that Saucysalsa30 was again bludgeoning editors in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palace of the End along with making assorted other accusations against editors there. In response I gave Saucysalsa30 an official warning for their behavior. Saucysalsa30 responded to this by accusing me on multiple pages (see diffs 1, 2, and 3) of hounding them, implied I was defending an acquaintance in the previous ANI, and that I have been canvassing against them. Saucysalsa30 previously received a 60 hour block for edit warring and I believe they now need a longer block for violating the civility policy. However, because Saucysalsa30 has made false allegations against me, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest I am raising the issue here and ask other admins to make a decision on this. For the record, I have not been hounding or canvasing against Saucysalsa30 and I have had only a few interactions with the editor Saucysalsa30 is calling my "acquaintance." To my knowledge my only previous interactions with Saucysalsa30 was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zainab Salbi and the ANI discussion linked above resulting from that AfD, both of which took place in December 2022. I also thanked Saucysalsa30 in January 2023 for starting this successful AfD and raising awareness of a case of possible COI editing.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hounding is a serious matter, and accusing someone of it should not be done without strong evidence (WP:AOHA). Saucysalsa30, do you have any evidence of hounding, or was this a personal attack? - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• 24 hours for now. Thanks, Lourdes 07:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: After being blocked Saucysalsa30 provided a long response on their talk page. In my opinion the response is misleading, especially with regards to the previous ANI discussion. Saucysalsa30 started that ANI by making accusations against an editor named Beccaynr but the discussion quickly turned to concerns around Saucysalsa30's behavior. And with regards to the current AfD, two separate editors there raised complaints about Saucysalsa30 either not being civil or bludgeoning the discussion. In addition Saucysalsa30 recently made another accusation of canvassing in a separate AfD. And after researching this more it's obvious there is a long history of such behavior by Saucysalsa. In November 2022 Saucysalsa30 was given a six-month topic ban on Kurds and Kurdistan. The arbitration discussion included concerns about Saucysalsa30 falsely accusing editors of hounding and making other personal attacks. In addition, another admin User:EvergreenFir previously warned Saucysalsa30 about making personal attacks. In short, a number of admins and editors have warned, cautioned, and counseled Saucysalsa to improve their behavior and follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in particular with regards to civility, but it doesn't appear to be having any effect.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I notice in their recent comment on their Talk page, Saucysalsa30 appears to allege I had engaged in disruptive editing and personal attacks and then says I apologized to [them] so [they] withdrew the ANI section, but does not link to my actual apology at ANI or my later clarification during the ANI discussion about how "I tried to clarify how I was not "repeatedly trying to get [you] for violating a tban even after an admin told [me] there's no violation", by expressing regret for not being more clear about clarifying the scope of the Tban, which from my view, is different from asserting a Tban violation and requesting a block."

I also notice in the recent AfD noted by SouthernNights above, one of Saucysalsa30's comments includes Disclaimer: The above "keep" commenter is an active member of WikiProject Musical Theatre, a sister of WikiProject Theatre. Both WikiProjects are dedicated to creating, improving, and like in this case, keeping theatre-related articles. They have an interest in keeping any theatre-related article, including non-notable entries. at 06:00, 5 June 2023. Also, while the AfD is pending, Saucysalsa30 continued to remove content from the article over an objection to doing this during the AfD, with the edit summary "I can't find any policy to back up this statement. I understand the WikiProject motivation to keep any article in the topic area, no matter how non-notable like this, but with or without this content, no notability is shown." at 06:08, 9 June 2023. Beccaynr (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

40.138.115.208

IP consistently vandalizes across multiple years. [178][179]List of Tugs characters (multiple times here) ✶Mitch199811✶ 01:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I blocked 40.138.115.208 (talk · contribs) for a week. Is this an LTA? If you notice further problems from this IP, let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Their issues are generally spread out across years and its only happened four times. As someone unfamiliar with tugs it took me a while to realize the edits were vandalism and while the David issues were confusing, quick checking between season articles convinced me to rollback. ✶Mitch199811✶ 02:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Persistent passive-aggressive communication style of Blackgaia02

I am not a saint at all and myself became one of the troublemakers here, but I got the feeling that the user Blackgaia02 is simply not aware of any rules of communication on the project as a whole. For example, I just received this message from him where he directly uses obscene language in my address, threatens me in case I "meddle with his edits" and use Karen's derogatory term at me, clearly trying to attack me for questioning his actions in the past. It is noteworthy that I received this only because I canceled his edit earlier and simply offered another option as a compromise. I thought that the user would be fine with this, but it seems that he took it as hostilely as possible. I was recently banned for an edit war, so I would have easily gone to them to discuss this, but the user simply chose to attack me. This is not the first time this has happened, like this a user reacted in the past to my attempt to discuss the description of spoiler information in article (the user actually came to the thread at my invitation, but limited himself to this answer and ignored both my answer and the questions of other users). Similar passive aggression, getting personal and treating any disagreement or doubt about his edits as hostility towards him. This is where the user's participation in the discussions simply ends, as he either ignores the messages on his discussion page, or ignores the discussions after such one-time answers. Judging from similar responses to other users, I'm not the only one. I beg you to pay some attention to this, because being an emotional person and already affected because of this in the past, I am afraid of being overstepped by continuing such a response to me. Solaire the knight (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Your problem is that you kept on reverting edits that I made that the info is confirmed in the anime itself, I was minding my own business there. And about the spoilers, gatekeeping them is stupid since right now the wiki is been laxing rules regarding spoilers in every single media. You actually kept on totally bickering that they should be removed when the things confirmed are already confirmed on the anime. And why would I want to compromise when its gonna be more restraining my freedom on editing itself. I get your point but your problem is that you're too controlinng on what info needs to be included on a GUNDAM anime. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I literally opened the topic and offered to discuss the boundaries of this. As in the article about this show, and in general. And several times invited you to discuss it. But you chose to leave passive-aggressive comments and then refuse to discuss. As far as I can see, you have not even read these threads, because you are not aware that I never suggested deleting this information, but only how to more reasonably describe it. While remembering how we argued about exactly how to interpret things, you should have been aware anyway that I didn't advocate removing it. I can't simultaneously try to remove something and discuss how to describe it at the same time. This is not to mention the fact that using devalued vocabulary and labels in my address or directly saying that you refuse to compromise "so as not to limit your freedom" is quite problematic to put it mildly. Solaire the knight (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Because I don't want to for my own. I don't like a go on a point of view that I never liked the most. I don't like it even if its gonna make it into another generic article. And how the fact do you describe the whole "more reasonably describe it" when the series needs its own terms. Clones in that series are called Repli-Child and you still don't want that term nor just naming the suits in their canonical name. I can't stand it. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collective project, you cannot defiantly refuse any discussions if they do not imply full acceptance of your views on the article. It seems to me that a person with your experience should already understand this. The terms in this case are just a formality, because we are still talking about clones and cloning. Even other users noticed this and directly asked about the reasons for this on your part, but you simply refused to discuss it and the topic died out, as we see, leading to another conflict after a while. Not to mention other little things where you didn't realize that as a clone of Eri, Suleta had the same father or that information about her father was a legend before then. Clones don't start work differently if the show uses a different word for it, unless it's explicitly stated. What was not. And I still want to remind you that even if you disagree with other users, this does not give you the right to label them or speak to them in a similar tone. Solaire the knight (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

How wikipedia handles this is just forcing me to do thing I don't like, especially to people far worse. All I want is to contribute on my own terms, with no interference from people that would drag me down because of all of that mental stress everyone is giving.

To answer your question: She is a clone but the writers use different terms and different methods, it is not like how real life cloning works. Its a clone but it doesn't need to be called in that generic name. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop. Did I understand you correctly? Are you now directly stating that you refuse to discuss and seek consensus, because it prevents you from "editing Wikipedia on your terms"? I just don't know what to answer to that. Going back to the clones, all it's different at the moment is a different name. Which also clearly copies the word replicant with obvious intentions. I don't know where you got that it works differently. Just because she wasn't called a clone outright? Solaire the knight (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Well how should I get to your consensus then? Should I surennder my own freedom of editing to this site and be like everyone else? Just because you want me to agree on your consensus on the site? Fine then. BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Erm, consensus is a collective thing, it can't just be my opinion or yours. It's a collective decision that should be accepted by as many people as possible in order to resolve a difficult issue and avoid conflicts. It's not about "freedom" or who is "right". Solaire the knight (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Solaire the knight, instead of leaving messages on user talk pages, you are expected to initiate discussions on article talk pages. I have blocked User:Blackgaia02 for personal attacks this time for 24 hours. I am not commenting on editorial issues here (I don't agree with some of your edits; but that's for another day). Focus on article talk page discussions. (e.g. Talk:List of Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury episodes is totally empty. Why? If you have such a contentious edit issue, then take the first step and open up talk page discussions). Thank you, Lourdes 07:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • It is empty because the discussion was started by me on the discussion page of the anime itself. I started this here because the original controversy arose from discussions of characters before they were a standalone article. I also asked other users to look at the user's contribution in the theme project talk. As for the episodes, this page is mostly written by another user, and with him we reached an informal consensus that they will simply comment on edits more often to avoid misunderstandings and disputes. I thanked them for a couple of edits and don't touch anymore. Solaire the knight (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Tendentious IP

• 142.189.112.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also used 184.147.108.166)

This user inserted original research into LGBT rights in Ukraine, then edit-warred against multiple editors reverting their spurious and controversial edits ([180], [181], [182], [183]), and proceeded to accuse other editors–including an admin–of gang vandalism for reverting their material. They doubled down on this accusation despite being warned not to and suggested that the other IP they're using is someone else despite geotagging to the same neighborhood. I told them to stop tagging me twice; they did so again while accusing me of edit warring for reverting them once for separate content. This user is a classic time sink exhibiting a significant lack of competence (repeating the same link and not knowing one editor from another). Requesting action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that at WP:DR and will watch LGBT rights in Ukraine for a while. I did not see quite enough to semi-protect the article but it is not far off. I can't take action now because your latest edit (diff) missed the point of the IP's edit summary, namely that "Same-sex marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples ..." is confused wording. My advice would be to not worry too much about responding to the IP's every move. I will protect the article or otherwise prevent the SPAs from overwhelming it if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I linked edit warring, spurious accusations, harassing tagging, and incompetent edits. Saying you can't take action now does not make sense: the IP deleted material from the lead that is well-sourced and even has its own article, so I added it back. Not sure what point I missed in the IP saying "Confused concept of same sex marriage and marriage. Illogical." You can absolutely act now and you have well more evidence than you need. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read the text I quoted. It does not make sense. Perhaps "marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples" was intended (omitting "Same-sex"). It's trivia but the IP was correct in that the sentence was junk regardless of sources. Wikipedia is frustrating but please be patient. I am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"Limited to" here clearly contextually means "exclusive to". I will assume you meant "trivial" and that same-sex marriage being prohibited in Ukraine isn't trivia on the article LGBT rights in Ukraine—to not do so would be pedantic. Please act on the abundance of existing evidence. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is in the combination of "same-sex" and "heterosexual". The sentence is paradoxical; Johnuniq is right. Step back and re-parse it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

While it's technically theoretically possible that same-sex marriage could remain limited to heterosexual people, I don't think any country has ever done that since it makes little sense. It's clear this isn't the case in Ukraine where same-sex marriage isn't allowed even when the people are heterosexual. Note I avoided the term "couple" since there may be some debate whether two people getting married should be considered a couple if there's no romantic or sexual pairing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 12:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Marriage is limited to a man and a woman in Ukraine in article 51 of the constitution.

Same-sex marriages are banned. This is exactly the problem with the entire article.

Why insist it be written in such an obfuscated manner? 142.189.112.124 (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Elmidae@Johnuniq@

Hello and respectfully, thank you for your time.

LGBT rights in Ukraine is a needlessly long article and should be divided into subpages. It seems to be obfuscating plain facts about UA and its LGTB community with a bias towards protecting practices of discrimination attribution of fault towards a party with whom UA is currently at war as opposed to the current government who is not making the changes because of popular sentiment. Human Rights Watchers would struggle to find highly relevant and referenced justified content in the page that is worded clearly and concisely.

In a neighborhood discussion, one of my neighbors of Ukrainian descent and member of the community discussed in the article, pointed out the edit they had made on this site. Their comment was that Wikipedia is extensively being targeted by propaganda or biased editing with the effect of covering up the plight of LGBT community in UA. We both have extensive experience in matters of Diversity. Assuring them to take a look, that is when I became aware the information being deleted from the page. Including the information from 184.xxx.xxx.xxx which was a summary with 5 key takeaways. Perfect, in my view, for the top of the lead.

The content added was thoroughly checked. References were added to the European Union funded Rainbow Europe research, which includes research by the EU on Ukraine's constitution, legislation and practices in this regard. It is the organization consulted for LGTB matters when considering entry in to the EU as I understand it.

Concerns consistently and politely responded to, however, rather than fixing formatting issues an edit war was kicked off by repeatedly deleting the addition of the factual 5 takeaways. It appears the use of revert was triggered by the inability to separate emotional bias from logic and facts. I ask that the article be restored to the last post before Ponyo reverted for the last time. I will help to ensure any edits after that time readded if the edits were legitimate.

Please review the article talk page for the timeline I provided.

Also, please review my IP talk page for the threats I received.

Thank you. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

If you try to add the 5 key points again you're likely to be blocked or otherwise stopped from editing the article. It's not something suitable for an encyclopaedia article. As I mentioned on the article talk page, you're welcome to include the information in a Rainbow Europe information article where such a thing might be more suited but if you're going to edit here, you need to write content suitable for encyclopaedia articles. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As an additional point, content should not be added to the WP:lead if it isn't already in the body. While it's sometimes still helpful to add add references to the lead, this means it's should not be particularly important whether you added RS to support whatever you were adding as you should not having been adding it unless it was already the body. If it was not already in the body you needed to add it to the body with references either before or at the same time. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 12:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Please consider the policy direction here.Summary style and Wikipedia:Writing better articles need to write for multiple readers.

"The lead section is the first part of the article; it comes above the first header, and may contain a lead image which is representative of the topic, and/or an infobox that provides a few key facts, often statistical, such as dates and measurements."

These comments are specifically counter to the direction given by Wikipedia. Repeatedly threatening with blocking people for following the guidance of wikipedia in a contentious topic, should have consequences. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in the text you cite in any way supports the addition of numbered points to the lead section. If you read the guideline properly it clearly says

As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead.

A numbered point is clearly not a well-composed paragraph. I suggest you take a look at at our best articles, our WP:Featured Articles for examples of how articles are meant to be written rather than reading some text, mis-intepreting it, then edit warring over it. If you're going to WP:edit war because you've misinterpreted something a guideline says and continue to misinterpret it and insist you're right even when every experienced editor is telling you you're wrong, yes you will be blocked. New editors who make mistakes but recognise they are new and so are willing to learn are welcome here. New editors who make mistakes but think they know everything and refuse to learn are not. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC) 14:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Elmidae you are engaging in exactly the kind of pedantic and prolix application of formating as a justification to remove relevant concise factual material in Wikipedia:Writing better articles. You are also uncovering that citations as you point out to @Pbritti, that her revert for not having citations in the lead is against recommended practice. "although it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead." and yet @Pbritti was likely Stonewalling with this technique with the assistance of the group including an admin. Essentially using bullying to deny relevant concise information to which no content objections have been suggested or could be supported. The "better articles" specifically calls for "an infobox that provides a few key facts, often statistical, such as dates and measurements" You measure human rights policies by the statuses in the five key points. This was repeatedly pointed out as an objective of the content. An objective to help measure human rights status in UA. That is consistent with bullet points and the concise and clear wording.

I suggest to find consensus, the wording in the first paragraph be changed as follows. Heading to be used "5 Key facts on LGTB Human Rights Status".

The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family.

This suggestion is consistent with 142.189.112.124 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to remind people posting here, that it was during the first world war that woman's suffrage made large gains because their treatment was exposed. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

...what the hell is going on here. Gotta love arguing with people who are invested up to their armpits, to the point that they can't grasp grammatical problems anymore. IP, here is the dumbo version: let a homosexual couple be represented by AA. Let a heterosexual couple be represented by AB. The original sentence "Same-sex marriage remains limited to heterosexual couples" thus reads "AA marriage remains limited to AB couples". That's ALL I'm saying. This is clearly not what is meant, clearly a minor grammatical screw-up that can be resolved by replacing "same-sex marriage" with "marriage", and not an invitation to write a page's worth of finger-pointing and high dudgeon. Now please calm the fuck down. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That is what I was saying. Pbritti insisted on the illogical wording.

Here is what they wanted deleted.

5 Key facts on LGTB Human Rights Status

The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but then that's just WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You're insisting on a non-standard summary style to influence public opinion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, c'mon, I told them not to ping me and there it is again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Who is insisting on illogical, obfuscated, factually incorrect content to influence public opinion?

One may not like what it says about Ukraine, but it is the truth and the truth should be the only thing that takes the spotlight on Wikipedia. If you disagree with the content it is within your rights to find and support opposing views of equal or greater weight. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

142.189.112.124 is clearly a disruptive editor who is trying to invent a new format for lead sections and trying to claim that is complies with MOS:LEAD when clearly that is not the case. They are trying now to suggest propose a consensus that boils down to "abandon MOS:LEAD and do it the novel way I've been trying to argue". Given their only edits on this whole encyclopædia are unconstructive, I would suggest we just ban the IP and semi-protect the page for a while rather than spending further energy on a disruptive editor who has no interest in consensus and who has an inventive approach to wikilawyering. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggested reformatting as a paragraph. Not inventing something new, just following Wikipedia:Writing better articles

5 Key facts on LGTB Human Rights Status

The LGTB community in Ukraine does not have constitutionally protected rights. Same sex couples are legally banned from adopting children. Same sex marriage is constitutionally excluded. Gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals can perform military service. Partners of gay, lesbian and bisexual military personnel killed in war cannot claim Military Death Benefits for Family. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Are those all key points mentioned elsewhere (and sourced elsewhere) in the article? If so, then the sentences could, with editing, be added to the intro. The "5 key facts…" fragment does not belong in the intro.

However, the way to get the sentences added is through collaborative discussion at the article's talk page. I share the concern raised by other editors that the IP has neither demonstrated that sort of collaborative behaviour nor that they understand the Manual of Style and other guidance for writing articles. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred Thank you and agreed the sentences should be added as they are referenced from material in the article, although they appear to be unclear in their sentence structure.

Regarding the use of the title 5 key facts, this comes specifically from the Wikipedia:Writing better articles guidance. Here is a quote ""The lead section is the first part of the article; it comes above the first header, and may contain a lead image which is representative of the topic, and/or an infobox that provides a few key facts, often statistical, such as dates and measurements."

I leave it to the group to express their views on how that might help with the guidance given in WWBA guidance. I suggest it does. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I would further suggest that the articles passages which contain these facts be clarified to be consistent with the suggested clearly stated 5 key facts from the article. 142.189.112.124 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It now sounds like the IP is more insistent on pushing in this "5 key facts" text than actually improving the article. The behavioural issue is now sufficiently demonstrated that, if they continue to disrupt the article, sanctions are in order. (To be clear, these would be "ordinary" sanctions for disruptive, tendentious editing, not anything related to a contentious topic.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As I originally said: tendentious. We will never convince this IP that they aren't right. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

legal threat of user:Flamelai

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Flamelai (talk · contribs)'s edit on Special:Diff/1158520327 was making a direct legal threat against user:331dot, Please revoke TPA. Thanks. -Lemonaka‎ 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

They reverted the legal threat just a minute later. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Per their own comments on talk page, I still believe that this reverted legal threat can still be taken as a threat. -Lemonaka‎ 17:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Which other comments make you believe that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Previous "western watchdog" callings and User talk:Flamelai#Statement, even we have explained why their behaviour is not appropriate on this project, they still let out such threat. -Lemonaka‎ 17:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing else on their talk page (or anywhere else I can see) that even hints at legal action. And come on, someone makes a legal threat and then immediately reverts it, and you think the appropriate action is to stomp on them with TPA removal? What else should someone do if, in the heat of the moment, they make a comment that they quickly realise is a mistake? At the very least, shouldn't you ask them if they still mean the threat before demanding the hammer? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, I will take a step away if you believe this is appropriate. I still keep my opinion that any comments should be considered twice before letting out or clicking the publish button. -Lemonaka‎ 17:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I have the same opinon as you. But if you can find anyone who claims they have always done that and have never commented too heatedly, I'll show you a liar. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Flamelai should have considered twice before publishing that comment, but so should Lemonaka before starting this discussion. Let's just close this without taking any action against anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• WP:NOTHERE indef'd by Courcelles.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that was weeks ago on the 18th of May. This is about user talkpage comments they made while they were blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Return of S201050066: Electric Boogaloo

Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#The return of S201050066

S201050066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.48.226.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

S201050066 is back being disruptive with re-adding Canadian provinicial items to an international page. Can we please get the pages semiprotected? Please let me know if a comprehensive list should be provided. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: The IP has been blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated policy violations/abuse, personal insults, and likely tag-teaming at Boulton and Park

There is an enormous amount of detail in this situation. I am willing to be exhaustive if it will help, but for now I am going to list my two primary complaints as concisely as I can. I'm going to list them in perceived order of severity, which is reverse-chronological.

1. User:SchroCat almost certainly engaged in bad-faith tag-teaming in order to intentionally subvert the Third Opinion process

After a long period in which SchroCat and I were the only editors involved, but only shortly after I requested two Third Opinions, two users well-known to SchroCat showed up in the thread. One, User:Tim_riley, contributed nothing but insults and weak appeals to the status quo; the other, User:Ssilvers, was civil and gestured at good-faith discussion, but didn't make very concrete claims or offer any evidence, and never returned to the thread when asked to follow up. Immediately after that, SchroCat made this edit at the 3O page, claiming that now that others were involved, the dispute no longer qualified.

Of course I can't literally prove that this is what happened, but the timing and behavior of all parties is astonishingly suspicious. Even if SchroCat did not explicitly invite the other users to the thread for this purpose, using their presence to immediately subvert my attempt to follow policy to the letter once it was clear our dispute was not making progress seems, on its own, flagrantly inappropriate. At no time did SchroCat offer an alternative avenue for dispute resolution, instead making authoritative statements like "This is done. Time to move on." and "Don't you think it's time you Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK?".

A third user, User:Serial_Number_54129, who participated in the FAC review and thus was also clearly quite familiar with SchroCat, then archived the entire discussion just over two hours after SchroCat's 3O edit above, with no discussion or rationale.

At this point I knew there was no actual discussion to be had, and started exploring my options for escalating the issue. I posted to the Help Desk on the 6th, trying to figure out the right venue for escalation. Then on the 8th, possibly having seen the above behavior called out in my post, Tim reverted the archival. SchroCat, however, doubled down on their belief that it was appropriate to unilaterally close an in-progress discussion before the clearly most substantive edit had been discussed at all.

Which leads me to

2. SchroCat repeatedly reverted my good faith edit with no explanation whatsoever

I read the Boulton and Park article with interest, and, as I usually do, fixed up a bunch of grammar as I went. This time, however, I also encountered a larger issue with the structure of the Historiography section. This section presents the claims of two scholars as diametrically opposed, when in fact their works make no reference to each other, and their claims are obviously mutually compatible and not even really related. The bulk of my initial edit is cleaning this section up, disentangling these arguments from each other and fixing a couple sentences that didn't make sense.

SchroCat immediately reverted almost the entire edit, with the summary "A poor set of edits: bad punctuation, poor grammar and removing cited information". In addition to various other problems, this summary notably does not address this most substantial part of the edit at all.

In accordance with WP:BRR, which states in part "Another case where the re-revert may be necessary is when an incumbent editor reverts without justification in the edit summary, which is a form WP:Status quo stonewalling.", I reverted this change, and requested that SchroCat improve or discuss my edits, rather than unilaterally reverting them with no stated reason.

SchroCat responded by reverting again and accusing me of edit warring on my talk page. Humorously, they also said "See BRD" in their edit summary, even while flagrantly violating it.

Once they reverted a second time, I wrote a long post on the talk page going through the separate edits I had made one by one, providing my justifications for them, and requesting that they state their objections if any. They didn't like how long the post was and yelled at me a bit, so I offered to go through the points one at a time instead, which seemed slightly more palatable to them. We even made a bit of progress, though not without them resorting to personal insults in the edit summary. However, the discussion quickly got out of hand, leading to the 3O requests mentioned above. The whole thing was then fully derailed and archived without my consent well before we had gotten to the substantial part of the edit.

Please note that my very first post on the talk page justified that portion of my edit in detail; at no time has this been acknowledged by anyone in any way.

There is quite a lot of other incidental bad behavior that happened along the way, but this is the meat of it from my perspective. The article is obviously flawed, and the person who has appointed themselves its guardian has not so much as acknowledged that at attempt was made to address a flaw, instead repeatedly reverting without discussion or rationale, resorting to personal insults and authoritative statements about what will or won't stay in the article, and, finally, bringing in a bunch of friends to disrupt a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute via neutral third parties. I don't know what remedy is appropriate here, but I hope there is one that can allow me and other wikipedians to improve this article without encountering this kind of obstructionism.

Thank you for your time! Personman (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Boulton and Park)

That's the concise version? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. There's quite a lot more. — Personman (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

My problem isn't with the amount of content in your post, but with the number of words you use to state it. User:SchroCat could do with some work on concision, but you are far worse. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What a tissue of half-truths and outright lies we have here, all interwoven into yet another whopping WP:WALLOFTEXT.

• Firstly, if you “can't literally prove that this is what happened”, the. You should not me making false accusations. That falls under Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, part of WP:CIVIL, which you’ve been breaching since our first interaction.
• You accused me of bad faith in our first interaction, which was not just uncivil, but also a lie. When you edit warred and I asked you to use the talk page instead, you then accused me of ownership. That's a second incivility and a second lie. Just because someone reverts your edit because it isn't an improvement, it's neither done in bad faith, nor ownership: it's because your edit wasn't good. If you start a thread with a 2,000-word whinge fest containing incivility and half-truths, don't expect the rest of the conversation to be full of sunshine and happiness.

• I "almost certainly engaged in bad-faith tag-teaming in order to intentionally subvert the Third Opinion process"? Do you have any evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim, or are you just intent on smearing people who disagree with you? All three of the other editors had been active on the talk page in the days before your 2,000-word wall of text appeared (Tim riley and Serial Number 54129 on 1 June; SSilvers on 2 June). Before throwing out such untrue accusations, has it crossed your mind that they may have the page on their watchlists? Or is it because they disagreed with you that means I must have engaged in tag-teaming?
• According to you, I edited the 3O page to claim that since there were now more than two parties involved, it was invalid: yes, I left a message on the 3O page to say that there were four people involved in the thread – 3O is designed for when there are two editors who can't agree, not when one editor doesn't like the consensus of three editors against them. Again, this isn't the sign of some dastardly plot.
• WP:TAGTEAMing? Bollocks. Four people disagreeing with you is not tag teaming: it is four people disagreeing with you, nothing more.
• You'll have to ask Serial Number 54129 about the archiving, but I suspect it may have to do with your refusal to take on board the fact no-one agreed with you and that you'd driven the thread to a whopping 7,175 words – about minor points on an article that only has 5,284 words. Such WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and relitigating petty points over and over is just time-wasting and disruptive.
• I “repeatedly reverted my good faith edit with no explanation whatsoever”. You provided no decent rationale for most of your edit at the first instance, and disagreed with it, so I reverted per BRD. The face you continued edit warring to force in some sub-standard changes, including deleting valid and sourced information, shows a contempt for other editors and the process you should have followed. You have thrown out uncivil accusations of bad faith since our first interaction, ignored the consensus of the previous review process and that on the talk page and shown no attempt to listen to other editors. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

ps. As you’ve falsely accused three other individuals of bad behaviour in this thread, you should also be leaving them the appropriate ANI message. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

On most of these points I think the observable facts and my first post speak for themselves. There are two things here though that I feel merit a response.

1. "You provided no decent rationale for most of your edit at the first instance, and disagreed with it, so I reverted per BRD."

You've repeatedly made this counterclaim as though it has some basis in policy, without providing any evidence that it does. BRD is very clear that the onus is on the reverter, not the bold editor, to provide a rationale for the revert. You did not and still have not done this. I had no obligation to provide a full justification for the improvement with my initial edit, but I have done so since and have to date received no response. Part of my hope in opening this case is that I will receive some authoritative guidance on how to proceed without getting in trouble — since you've reverted me once without reason and ignored multiple requests for discussion, I'm not sure what else to do besides just making the edit again, or, well, coming here.

2. As you’ve falsely accused three other individuals of bad behaviour in this thread, you should also be leaving them the appropriate ANI message.

The wording at the top of the page says "When you start a discussion about an editor..". I don't think anything those other people did rises to the level of an ANI-worthy infraction; it is your conduct I'm here to discuss. If an admin lets me know I'm misinterpreting this, I'm more than happy to leave them the notice, but it seems unwarranted to me based on that wording.

— Personman (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What you have posted has little to do with “facts”, and more to do with your a misguided and bad-faith misinterpretation of the facts.

I provided a rationale. You edited an FA in a poor manner, leaving it in a worse state than it was previously, thus the revert. The rest has been your belligerence in not accepting the existing consensus or the subsequent one. - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Is this guy still doing this? Yes, ShcroCat summarises my motives 100%: the discussion—such as it was—had long since turned into a battlefield, with all the concomitant bludgeoning you might expect when four editors have told you you are mistaken but you're desperate to make a point. See Wikipedia:Guy Macon's story. Which needs expanding! That discussion was done. It was going around in circles. It was kipping on its back. I closed it: Mea maxima culpa. I guess it was an IAR edit from the guy who never invokes IAR. And, indeed, that seemed to settle the matter—except for the fact that Personman has deemed it a valuable use of their and our time to relitigate the issue here after nearly a week has passed.

Incidentally—and talking of priorities—of their last 50 edits (06:46, 17 April 2023–11:49, 11 June 2023), only five are not related to Boulton and Park. I think WP:STICK might apply if nothing else. I'll leave it up to others to decide whether this ~obsession has crossed the border into WP:DE yet. SN54129 14:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be pure verbosity, rather than WP:BLUD. While I don't think Personman is behaving perfectly, they've basically been correct in most of their observations about the article, and SchroCat has also behaved questionably:

• The use of "what" in Many of the papers included leaders that were indignant that homosexuality—what was considered a foreign habit—was being practised in England. is so obviously ridiculous and archaic that it is worrying that SchroCat restored it with all-caps text in the edit summary. [184]
• The relevant part of Joyce 2018, emphasis my own, is A recent history of male homosexuality in the nineteenth century, H.G. Cocks’s Nameless Offences (2010), suggests that the interpretation of Fanny and Stella “has gone through distinct phases,” but I want to suggest one way that it has been entirely consistent over the past thirty-five years. So, it is not exactly WP:SYNTH to place these side by side (so I disagree with Personman that Joyce needs to be put in his own ¶) but the level of opposition between them is clearly exaggerated in the article when it says The historian Harry Cocks states that the interpretation of history of the Boulton and Park arrest and trial "has gone through distinct phases"; although Simon Joyce, a professor of English, argues the interpretation has been consistent.
• I agree that it's weird to drop the limerick into the article without giving any analysis based on secondary sources, and that this suggests that its inclusion may be based on nothing but comedic value at the expense of the subjects of the article.

small jars tc 18:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Unblock appeal of CompromisingSuggestion

The following is the unblock appeal of CompromisingSuggestion, who has requested a community discussion. I am strictly doing this as a courtesy, and not only make no endorsement in doing so, but with my standing by my decline of a prior appeal. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like for this to be a community appeal. My appeal is based on Wikipedia:Appealing a block Type 1 form of appeal. Please don't ask me to ask for clemency but address the points I'm making and judge according to the best of your abilities. Thank you.

Reasons for appeal:

1. A Threat according to Wikipedia is defined as having intent and been done knowingly. The threat Cullen alleges to have happened was never intended to be a threat, let alone knowingly.

2. The reason why there was no intent was that it was an obvious analogy intended to clarify a previous statement which Cullen did not understand . Please if you're going to give this a serious hearing, at least read the context of that short exchange between us. Though I encourage you to dig further if you have the time and energy. Also please note that the statement was, as is expected from an analogy, hypothetical using the phrasing "IF" I were to sue you. Further clarifying that it's a hypothetical was the preface "even mortal enemies" which by any stretch of the imagination me and Cullen weren't and still aren't.

3. Cullen was asked to himself clarify how he could have perceived it as a threat in my talkpage. He has had 10+ days to do so but has not. This despite according to policy him being expected to do so. Thus either he does not takes his own accusation seriously himself or he has no good answer. Note that he has been active since then, making edits every day totaling well over 100 edits since I made the request for clarification.

Thanks for your attention. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

For reference, this is the legal threat that CS refuses to withdraw because, it seems, it's not a legal legal threat, merely a chilling effect legal threat. — Trey Maturin™ 16:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Simply put, unblocking them is going to open another can of worms that will result in them being blocked again, lather, rinse, repeat. The Wikilawyering is off the charts with them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. The original NLT-violation that led to the block was plausibly a matter of poor communication that would have been pretty easy to resolve, as 331dot and several other editors have repeatedly pointed out to CompromisingSuggestion. But the subsequent wikilawering, bludgeoning and inability/refusal to get the point seen on the user's talkpage show that even if the apparent legal threat is explicitly withdrawn, the IDHT and battleground conduct that led to the NLT-vio is very likely to recur and that the editor is not a good fit for this project. Errors and miscommunications are inevitable and excusable; not being able to resolve, learn and move on is not. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to block user: “thenightaway” due to vandalism on “Sulaiman Al-Fahim” page

Sulaiman Al-Fahim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Administrator,

User “thenightaway” is removing informative writing and credible sources on “Sulaiman Al-Fahim” page. This is vandalism and has been done so by this user before on this page. Please may i request to have user “thenightaway” blocked from making edits on “Sulaiman Al-Fahim” page as they are removing texts with no plausible reason or cause.

Thank you for your time and assistance, awaiting your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmicheal232 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Thenightaway has reverted your edit once, and neither of you have yet discussed it on the article's talk page. You posted on their user talk page about fifteen minutes ago then came here. Please try to resolve your differences through discussion first. Schazjmd (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jacobmicheal232, I also see that just about every edit you've ever made to that article has been reverted (not just by Thenightaway), yet you've never tried to discuss your concerns with the article at Talk:Sulaiman Al-Fahim. That page is where these disagreements should be discussed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Jacobmicheal232, I have informed Thenightaway about this thread as you appear to have forgotten to do so. — Trey Maturin™ 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Jacobmicheal232's edits were reverted because they added poorly sourced puffery to the Sulaiman Al-Fahim and removed reliably sourced content. The editor bears all the hallmarks of a paid editor or WP:COI editor. The Sulaiman Al-Fahim page has a history of extensive COI editing. Thenightaway (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at User:Roxy the dog, and WP:POINTy stuff as a result

I have two issues that admins should take a look at. They are two different things, but the first leads to the second, so I hope it's OK for me to make a single section about it.

First, there is some edit warring going on over tagging User:Roxy the dog's user page (tagging as CBANed). I originally reverted, but at this point it's just going on and on, and I think it's best for an uninvolved admin to decide how to handle it, whichever way that is. Just whatever the right thing is, tagged or not tagged, policy-wise.

And the second is a mean-spirited and WP:POINTy reaction to my reverts by User:Horse Eye's Back, which just seems like retaliation rather than a sincere attempt to improve anything. See: [185], [186], [187]. If someone wants to disagree with what an essay says, that's OK (and I'm fine with some constructive edits that he made after that), but putting something on it asking readers to look for misconceptions is not constructive, and reverting it back in crosses a line into disruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Input from admins has already been requested, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin needed to add template. I'm sorry to have offended you, I did not mean to do so... I'm also confused, are you actually questioning whether the idea that lemmings commit mass suicide is a misconception? I don't believe that reverting a misuse of rollback is disruptive, wouldn't the disruption be the misuse of rollback? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you know the answer to your own question. My concern is not over lemming behavioral ecology. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Then why not just remove the second sentence? You removed both, including the one which was purely about lemming behavioral ecology. You didn't mark the misconception or correct it in any way (were you at some point intending to? Or did you intend to continue misleading readers of the essay?). I also asked two question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As someone not involved, I can see horse throwing around a straw man argument to muddy the waters. Editors should strive to be honest and civil. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what the straw man you see is? I don't believe I've ever had significant issues with either honesty or civility (nor do either appear to be at issue here) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish took offense to an edit made by Horse Eye's Back. HEB apologized. Unless someone has concerns over the Tryptofish's use of rollback, is there any reason to keep this open? Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like some clarification of the user page tagging. And I think that uninvolved admins should evaluate for themselves what they think about the "apology", when taken in context of the subsequent comments here, and the conduct that surrounds it. (And don't frame it as me taking offense. The issue is whether the conduct was appropriate.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• It's also worth noting that User:Lettherebedarklight jumped on to RtD's user page in this diff. Not so much the revert, however unnecessary, but see my user name as in the edit summary. Childish trolling, I agree, but it's worth nipping such behaviour in the bud early. SN54129 17:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  it was a typo lettherebedarklight晚安 17:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nice try, but that's a negative. When you hit undo, you would have seen: Undid revision 1159648081 by Serial Number 54129 (talk). You would have physically needed to change it yourself to achieve: Undid revision 1159648081 by serial bumber 54129 (talk). In markup: Undid revision 1159648081 by [[Special:Contributions/Serial Number 54129|serial bumber 54129]] ([[User talk:Serial Number 54129|talk]]). And there you have it. SN54129 18:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  i was trying to change it to lowercase lettherebedarklight晚安 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why? — Trey Maturin™ 18:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  gah! i type in all lowercase! lettherebedarklight晚安 18:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, but you see that this vanity has caused you to insult another editor deeply and you promise to stop with this nonsense in future, yeah? — Trey Maturin™ 18:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  i make one typo and you both harp on me like this. lettherebedarklight晚安 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think this shows why it might be a bad idea for editors who were not directly part of the ban enactment to go around adding or restoring the tags. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  well, i'm done here. lettherebedarklight晚安 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Are we having a "see who can assume the least good faith" competition? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Well, the essay in question is about ANI threads that get off track, so I'll try to get this back on track. (1) There is starting to look like the beginning of a consensus at WT:Banning policy#Avoiding pointless ban-tag wars that the tag on Roxy's user page doesn't need to be there. I'm not going to touch it, at this point, but maybe an admin might want to remove it, at least for the time being. (2) HEB does not need to apologize for offending me, but do they understand that Can you find any other misconceptions on this page? is completely inappropriate outside of talk or user space? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that humor was banned from essay space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You think that was the problem? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That is what you are currently objecting to unless I'm missing something. You didn't think that an edit explicitly marked as humor was funny, now we're at ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Editor using two IP addresses to avoid a block

136.34.132.39 (talk · contribs) and 65.28.77.182 (talk · contribs) are almost certainly the same person. Both are located in Kansas City, Missouri. Both make edits almost exclusively related to radio stations. For years they have made edits, many unsourced. Both have multiple blocks. After each block the tag-team edits to articles related to radio stations resume, with no change in sourcing. They make no attempt to communicate or respond to warnings. There was a previous ANI report. If it only involved one or two articles, I would request page protection. But the number of articles edited is quite large. Thanks for any help. Sundayclose (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)