Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read 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

Incivility from Gwillhickers

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

---

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[3] 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. [4]
  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."[5]

  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 [6]. 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)
• Oppose ban: the allegations for violation of a clean start are obviously unfounded. And Freoh is no less civil than other editors, as demonstrated by statements made against Freoh in this discussion (per observations by .Raven). Larataguera (talk) 19:44, 13 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 [7], but I think that I have changed significantly on that issue since the last AN/I thread [8]. 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 development 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)

References

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)
• Support per all discussions above. – .Raven  .talk 18:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I resent Lourdes' choice of words: We can keep berating them and asking them to bow down to all. That is a very poor characterization of the legitimate concerns stated in this thread by several editors, myself included. Too many of you got too hung up on the clean start thing and didn't pay attention to anything else. As for the statement that this ANI is documented, so was the last one. This user has already received a formal warning, quite recently in fact. A second warning is pointless, and would – in my opinion – because worse than nothing because it would amount to an acknowledgment that the issues have continued but that the community simply does not care enough to actually do anything. Besides, we already have a proposal above that can be closed in accordance with whatever consensus the closing admin finds; we didn't need yet another subthread. Close the proposal above, close the megathread, kick the can down the round, and them blame yourselves when it ends up back here again in a few months. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as phrased: the warning is not strong or specific enough. It's not incivility so much as combativeness, not dropping the stick, and a special variety of wikilawyering (vis à vis this ANI thread and the overly zealous warnings issued to other editors). IMO Freoh should "chill out" but I am not sure how to word that and I have already tried. I definitely don't think Freoh should be banned, and a block could be seen as more punitive than preventative, but this warning doesn't quite do the trick. I'd say: Any admin (barring being involved in a direct dispute) may block or indef Freoh at any time if the behavior does not improve. I don't think any further warning or escalation is really necessary. Let admins do their thing and handle it like a discretionary sanctions situation. At that, does that even need to be said? Isn't that the prerogative of admins already? This is a very unfortunate situation because we have a most likely good faith attempt to address real concerns about bias in some important articles, but which are being approached in the wrong way. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Another proposal unnecessary — It seems this added proposal is unnecessary, as many people who already chimed in have expressed opposition to an indef and have opted for a warning. Given the abundance of votes it seems this ANI is close to closure anyway. This proposal will mostly, if not entirely, involve the same people chiming in all over again with the same vote and opinions. Indeed, the four votes here thus far were submitted by users who already voted and expressed their opinions in the above proposal. This redundant proposal is only going to drag this ANI out even further, and should be closed by an administrator. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• IMO what this needs is a tough thoughtful thorough warning and close and a record that there was a consensus for it. We've already invested a large amount of time and input on this, doing a little more to make sure it isn't all for nothing would be worth it. IMO the warning should include that there needs to be a substantial reduction in amount and severity of the behaviors which were the primary subjects of this discussion. I think that Freoh's apologies, self-reflection and statements were pretty good. However, regarding addressing of the combativeness the comments were so narrow / smaller scale that I don't think that they understand what the broad issue is. Degree of combativeness refers to dozens of areas. One might include how much severity it takes to go to a noticeboard and how they go about it such as the OP that started this here, another would be the frequency quantity and size and stridency of content debates (including bludgeoning), the degree that those are over what could be construed as a "cause" / value-laden material, the nastiness or friendliness of conversations. The latter would be worded as guidance and recommendation for a general evolution in that area rather than a structural part of the warning. I could try to draft one if folks want it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've no objection of other discussions occurring if they're not redundant and made by the same editors who chimed in above, but it seems most of us have been down that road and back again already, regarding warnings, temporary blocks, infef's and so forth – the ANI of last March notwithstanding. Any additional input or new votes can be effected with the above proposal. Splitting up the discussion is not going to help resolve anything and likely will only compound matters more than they have been already.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems this entire 'action against Freoh' discussion is a reprise of that 'ANI of last March' (archived without action, last post 27 March 2023) – ironic, since this overall thread's header topic is "Incivility from Gwillhickers"... that discussion being sidetracked by complaints about format of diffs, and left hanging. Hijacking it to revisit a less-than-three-month-old thread, repeating many of that thread's complaints and diffs, may or may not violate any WP rules (there's none against double jeopardy), but it doesn't look good to me. Ignoring the incivilities Freoh documented, to turn and warn/advise him to be CIVIL, looks awfully like a tu quoque. Where are the same warnings/advices to others? Or is there simple majority rule, where the majority can ignore all rules to which the minority is bound? It seems to me that isn't truly "consensus", since it lacks "the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all." – .Raven  .talk 23:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Alternatively, we can wait till this gets automatically archived, or an uninvolved administrator closes it as a no consensus reached issue. It would be prudent to close this on our terms with a strong warning being issued. If this gets archived, this discussion will not be documented as having warned Freoh. The advantage of having this here and documented is so that next time when we reach here, the chances of a full scale block would be much higher. Ergo, whether we like this close or not, a prudent consensus should be sought. Lourdes 06:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "with a strong warning being issued." – To whom? Do the incivilities first documented not merit warning? – .Raven  .talk 07:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously not because only you and your buddy seem to care about it. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:BD04:DF2D:37C2:D202 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not personally acquainted with any of the above, but you seem to say only one other commenter than me. Would that be Maxxhiato's "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."? Or DIYeditor's [to Freoh] "It's understandable and unfortunate that you feel bullied."? Or Larataguera's "Freoh is no less civil than other editors, as demonstrated by statements made against Freoh in this discussion"? Or Freoh himself? Whom are you designating my "buddy"? ... Oh, never mind, you're an IP with only two edits so far, this was your first, and the second (five minutes later) was a technical point on a talkpage, which shows familiarity with WP. Just forgot to sign in, or what? – .Raven  .talk 06:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously the warning would be directed to Freoh per the discussion above. The community clearly does not feel that the original report has merit. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Another "Obviously", despite four commenters other than Freoh appearing to disagree. – .Raven  .talk 22:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that's what happens when you ask a question with an obvious answer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I guess we're all chopped liver, then. – .Raven  .talk 01:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose-Freoh was warned once already. Settling for a warning after the behavior has persisted sends a message that their problematic behavior is fine. If not an indefinite block, then a block of some length needs to be implemented. Display name 99 (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Display name 99 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) – I see that your most recent block, last September, for "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: perennial disruption at both the article and talk page", took place during your own AN/I complaint against Cmguy777. Yopienso, who asked for your unblock, joined your complaint by saying (in part) "Cmguy means well but is biased toward minorities, particularly Black and Native Americans, and against Whites." – to which post you replied, "Yopienso, thank you! Finally, a voice of reason." (It is notable that a similar complaint is being made against Freoh.) On your talk page, WannurSyafiqah74 mentions, "Freoh warned you about some of the messages you've sent. Not all, some"... which leaves me wondering whether this is a revenge !vote. – .Raven  .talk 21:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My personal interaction with Freoh has been minimal and not nearly so extensive as that of some of the other editors who have contributed here. I did not jump to conclusions and took a careful look through the ANI thread before voting. Him trying to turn the discussion around by getting another user blocked was what did it for me. Display name 99 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

After that other user 'tried to turn the discussion around by getting' the thread opener banned — including the charge of "violating... Wikipedia:Clean start", of which there is no actual evidence, and the accused's counterproof offer has not been taken up? – .Raven  .talk 01:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Because Freoh, unlike BusterD, has clearly been a major problem on multiple Wikipedia pages and was formally warned once already for this conduct. Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

He was warned that he "should refrain from overlong talk arguments, avoid ignoring discussion consensus, and expect direct administrative remedies including blocks or topic bans if they continue to refuse to acknowledge their mistakes in the future." So here, other than lists of diffs, he has not posted long comments, has paid attention to thread consensus, and has acknowledged his mistakes.

Meanwhile, those who made unfounded accusations of "violating WP:CLEANSTART" and even sockpuppetry have not retracted after that unfoundedness was pointed out (nor taken Freoh's offer of counterproof); those who charged him with incivility have not pointed to examples – though some commenters have been uncivil to him.

Really, warnings should be directed elsewhere. – .Raven  .talk 23:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as written Freoh has already received formal warning only this March. Simply warning him again without this notice acknowledging the previously ANI warning seems pointless. The language should be a lot sterner and acknowledge the previous warning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  See my comment of 23:46, 15 June 2023, just a bit upthread. – .Raven  .talk 23:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Raven, you need to stop arguing with every comment that you don't agree with. Despite the old age of your account, the vast majority of your edits are from the past five months. In essence, you are a new editor who is trying to run before they have learned how to walk. I would strongly encourage you to step away from ANI and spend a significant amount of time familiarizing yourself with the broader community before you come back. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think that our discussion will be more productive if we avoid pulling rank, and I agree with .Raven in general. It seems that my main offenses are engaging in long discussions, sending stern user conduct warnings, and proposing a topic ban for disruptive behavior. How does it make sense for the solution to be prolonging the current discussion, sending me a sterner warning, or proposing that I be topic banned? I believe that I have heeded both DIYeditor's and BusterD's demands from March, and I wish that people would stop treating this as some sort of battleground.  — Freoh 14:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding this, not all personal comments are personal attacks. Please learn the difference before you attempt to take on a clerking role. Furthermore, I did not pull rank. How could I when I'm not even an administrator? (Also, that page is an essay; it does not care any more weight than I or anyone else choose to give it.) As noted below, I was offering advice. I've been around the block a few times and I've seen what happens when newer editors become too heavily involved on the dramaboards. Raven can accept or disregard my advice as they choose. Based on the top thread on this page, they seem to be disregarding it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Still more accusations from Freoh. Lepricavark was only giving words of caution and advice, not orders, and was certainly not "pulling rank". Referring to the numerous editors who have complained about Freoh's activity as "battleground" seems all too typical at this late date. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  *I* certainly felt an attempt at rank-pulling at the words "In essence, you are a new editor who is trying to run before they have learned how to walk. I would strongly encourage you to step away...." — On R.A. Wilson's 2x2 grid, that's called "I'm ok, you're not ok." But I assumed good faith and did not reply. – .Raven  .talk 07:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Moves against consensus by Buaidh

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

---

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)

Oppose – no bad faith (or incompetence) shown; clearly, discussion was the path to resolution. – .Raven  .talk 07:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

no bad faith (or incompetence) shown- well it's clearly one or the other (or a combination, but in my view, mostly or all the latter). Since the above, this user appropriately draftified Draft:List of schools in Adams County, Colorado by moving it from List of schools in Adams County, Colorado, but did not suppress the redirect, which was then speedy deleted per WP:R2. A page mover should have suppressed the redirect (WP:PMRC#6) and avoided involving an admin. This combined with the above demonstrates that either this user does not understand when suppress-redirect should be used and when it should not, or pays inadequate attention to whether or not the redirect is being suppressed. Either way, I maintain there is no justification for this user to continue to have page mover permissions. But it looks like we are heading for no consensus here, unless an admin chooses to exert their discretion over user rights. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

> "but did not suppress the redirect"

1) I'd be more worried if he'd suppressed it incorrectly; deleting a redirect is less of a problem than having to spot the absence and then recreate it.

2) I think he and I have the same user rights; I've never seen an option (button, checkbox, or whatever) for "suppress redirect" when moving a page – and just now I went through most of the motions on another page with option "Draftify" chosen, but still no "suppress redirect" option appeared.

3) The "Page Mover" flag gives options over and above what "extended confirmed users" get; are you sure you're not assuming Freoh gets options he doesn't actually get? – .Raven  .talk 23:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It flatters me to know that you are thinking of me, but I think that you may have gotten your wires crossed.  — Freoh 23:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I was looking at the wrong user, and wrong user rights. That's what I get for following a notification to mid-thread, and not checking which thread. – .Raven  .talk 01:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You do not have the page mover right according to the list linked from WP:PAGEMOVER. Regardless, I agree not suppressing a redirect and instead requesting speedy deletion after the fact is not a big deal, but it just contributes to showing that this user is not properly using the page mover permissions. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Missed a button/checkbox, did he? How often? – .Raven  .talk 01:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Taluzet at Berber languages

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

---

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 [9] 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 [10]. 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 [11] 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. [12] In other related pages, they make unsourced edits. [13][14][15] 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 [16]. 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)

• Britannica: Berber – "By [the 14th century], however, the Berbers were in retreat, subjected to Arabization of two very different kinds. The predominance of written Arabic had ended the writing of Amazigh (Berber) languages in both the old Libyan and the new Arabic script, reducing its languages to folk languages." – In other words, Tamazight had earlier been the dominant spoken and written language of the Imazighen.
• National African Language Resource Center (NALRC). "Tamazight (Berber)" – "Berber is viewed by many as a derogatory term and Berbers therefore refer to themselves as Imazighen, or Amazigh in singular form, which means free men."
• Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, at Harvard. "Imazighen - Amazigh Aesthetics & Symbology" – "Amazigh arts, like the Tamazight language, have coexisted with other North African forms of expression since pre-Islamic times." [emphasis added]
• Abdelkader Cheref (2021-06-23). "Don't call us Berber, we are Amazigh" – "Apart from ethnic identity, the Imazighen have also been focused on preserving their language, which dates back to at least 2000 BCE and has over time been called Tamacheq, Tamaheq and Tamazight. The preference these days is for the appellation Tamazight although, depending on where they live, they would say they speak Takbaylit, Tarifit, Tashelhit, Tuareg or Tumzabt. Few native speakers would refer to their language as Berber."
• See Libyco-Berber alphabet, and Tifinagh – "The word tifinagh (singular tafinəq < *ta-finəɣ-t) is thought by some scholars to be a Berberized feminine plural cognate or adaptation of the Latin word "Punicus", (meaning "Punic" or "Phoenician") through the Berber feminine prefix ti- and the root √FNƔ < *√PNQ < Latin Punicus; thus tifinagh could possibly mean "the Phoenician (letters)" or "the Punic letters"."
• The adjective "Punic" of course refers to Carthage, destroyed by Rome at the end of the Punic Wars, 146 BCE. In the usual theory, Carthaginians were western Phoenicians. But maybe not so much:
• Hannah M. Moots, et al, Stanford University (2022-03-13). "A Genetic History of Continuity and Mobility in the Iron Age Central Mediterranean" – "The contribution of autochthonous North African populations in Carthaginian history is obscured by the use of terms like “Western Phoenicians”, and even to an extent, 'Punic', in the literature to refer to Carthaginians, as it implies a primarily colonial population and diminishes indigenous involvement in the Carthaginian Empire. As a result, the role of autochthonous populations has been largely overlooked in studies of Carthage and its empire. Genetic approaches are well suited to examine such assumptions, and here we show that North African populations contributed substantially to the genetic makeup of Carthaginian cities."

– .Raven  .talk 06:48, 13 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. [17] "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, [18], 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)

Upthread, about mid-thread, I just posted multiple [brief] citations on Amazigh/Imazighen/Tamazight/Tifinagh. Please feel free to adapt them to updating Berber languages or anything else if they're at all helpful. – .Raven  .talk 07:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I have integrated these as cite/refs to existing text in the article. They're listed in the References section raw text, and can be cited for other text by just using their refnames. – .Raven  .talk 01:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:SummerKrut

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

---

SummerKrut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engages in uncivil/battleground behaviour and edit wars, in particular in the contentious topic of Eastern Europe. On Talk:Dnieper, SK accused another editor User:Mzajac of promoting Ukrainian state-sponsored propaganda [19], later calling MZ a pro-Ukrainian propagandist [20]. When challenged by MZ, SK barely changed anything [21], not following WP:REDACT

When I asked SK to consider striking uncivil comments, instead of showing that they understand policy, they doubled down with Truth stings.[22].

In SK's defense, most uncivilities happened before MZ made SK aware of EE being a contentious topic. However, SK has refused to strike out uncivil/battleground comments after having become aware and they have doubled down with Truth stings., which suggests that SK will not change their behavior. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

SummerKrut has been made aware that they are editing in a contentious topic.[23]  —Michael Z. 20:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In talk:Dnieper#Requested move 7 June 2023 SummerKrut has approached the subject from a WP:BATTLE perspective. Initially they voted with the sole rationale “pro-ukrainian POV-pushing,”[24] although they soon modified that,[25] and again later. But they continued to argue that the proposed title “is a transliteration from Ukrainian, which means that it promotes a specific point of view”[26] (ignoring that the current title, while historically more common in English, is derived from Russian). They seem to have not only disagreed with but took offence at my arguments, and made blatant accusations of bad-faith editing against me personally, and using labels associating supposed bad behaviour with Ukraine or Ukrainian nationality.

• “Thanks for proving that your only goal in Ukrainian topics is promoting a pro-Ukrainian point of view”[27]
• “please stop trying to promote Ukrainian state-sponsored propaganda”[28]
• “This is exactly why arguing with Ukrainian propagandists is pointless,”[29] quietly modified to “pro-Ukrainian” after I expressed my disapproval.[30]

This crosses some lines. This person doesn’t don’t stick to discussing the topic but extends the rhetoric to personal comments and personal labelling. They seem to be aware that some language is unacceptable, yet double down on personal comments that are not clearly acceptable.

The article is subject to WP:CTOP (Eastern Europe and the Balkans), and is peripheral to WP:GS/RUSUKR, especially since in the proposed move being discussed, a major point of evidence is that a large proportion of current sources on Russia’s war in Ukraine are using the name Dnipro. —Michael Z. 20:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyway the discussion is now closed with, expectably, retention of the status quo. "that the current title ... is derived from Russian" — I am sorry but it's not just me who has already told you that it's your own WP:OR. "a large proportion of current sources on Russia’s war in Ukraine are using the name Dnipro" — once again, WP:RECENTISM. Summer ^talk 07:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

SummerKrut is already aware of the consensus text in Dnieper#Names:

In English, Dnieper derives from Russian Dnepr, and Dnipro from the Ukrainian.

I don’t think this discussion about behaviour need get sidetracked by content matters. SummerKrut rejects the cited source which contradicts their POV, but hasn’t presented evidence to challenge it.  —Michael Z. 14:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week pending their talk page response. Pinging Ymblanter for their comment here. Please urgently provide the diffs so we can see the other parties' issues too here. Thank you, Lourdes 05:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes: I am not sure what you are asking me for. If you read the whole discussion, you would see that Mzajac badgers all opposes, and despite the outcome clearly not going to what they want it to be they insist on being absolutely correct with some arguments which are weak but policy-based and a lot of arguments which are not policy based. Even in this very discussion (ANI) above, they cite their own opinion [31] based on a biased source and call it "consensus". This is not the first discussion they behave like this and in fact this has been ongoing for years. They were previously topic-banned for similar behavior in Kyiv. If you insist that I collect all the diffs, this can not be done urgently, it could easily take me a few weeks - mind you, I have a full-time job and I do not have a file with links ready, I will have to search for them - I will go straight to the Arbitration Enforcement to ask for a topic ban. However, to be honest, this is not the highest priority for me. --Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Noted with thanks Ymblanter. I appreciate the response and the demands on your time. Please take your time in going to AE. Till that time, I would request you to please not repeat your accusations on any board against these editors, unless you have taken the time to prepare your diffs. I am confident you have your case strong, but there is no leeway on accusations. Thank you, Lourdes 06:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is fine with me, but we should also make sure that the behavior like the one in this RM does not continue. Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, I do not expect that ANI would be able to deal with this behavior (or with my behavior, if someone wants to). EE is a contentious topic, and we have year-long patterns here, whereas ANI can only deal with things like outright incivility (basically on one-diff level) Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Ymblanter for understanding. Warmly, Lourdes 06:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, @Lourdes.  —Michael Z. 19:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes, regarding other parties’ issues, @Ymblanter has been harassing me for years.

  In 2020 they labelled me a “POV-pushing” “Ukrainian ultra-nationalist”[32] (a lie).

  They even defended this slander in a related issue at ANI,[33] although admins demonstrated no will to do anything about it then. This was extremely upsetting and after multiple requests, they hypocritically “struck” the statement while amplifying it with “I still stand by every word of it,”[34] and finally removed that.[35]

  Since then they have repeatedly tried to keep me on edge by casting aspersions,[36] gloating about a previous topic ban,[37][38] and threatening admin actions.[39][40][41]

  Worst of all, attacking me and my contributions, with no basis. This is becoming disruptive.[42][43][44][45][46][47] (To the point of inspiring less experienced editors to ape their ad hominem attacks in content disputes.)[48]

  Ymblanter makes it clear they have been on a mission to get me to leave or banned for all this time.[49][50]

  They also often invoke groups of Ukrainians or Ukrainian ultranationalists working in concert,[51] and express a disdain for Ukrainian sources or “propaganda.”[52][53][54]

  Many of these attacks come unbidden, in discussions where Ymblanter is not participating and only arrives to attack me. The most egregious was a discussion at Talk:History of Kyiv#Consistent spelling of the title term in the text where they arrived out of the blue determined to finally get me for good. First they falsely claimed I was topic banned,[55] threatened me,[56] then moralized and decided to file an AE request.[57] The request is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive301#Mzajac. I was too upset about all of this to actually respond directly to the accusation before the request was closed with no action.

  I am finally cobbling together this here, because Ymblanter’s ongoing harassment campaign is intolerable. Apologies if I posted any duplicate diffs. I probably left some out, but I hope the above is enough to get someone to do something about this.  —Michael Z. 20:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Looking at this, it seems to me that I indeed went too far, for which I apologize. I will stop commenting on any motivations of Mzajac, and instead will just oppose their nominations where I deem it suitable. I reserve the right to report their behavior (obviously, with diffs) to appropriate fora. Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  That seems fair enough. Mzajac, Ymblanter's response is well-intended and should allow you space to edit here proactively. Thank you, Lourdes 09:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I have no idea what that means.

  Who are they even apologizing to, and for exactly what? They have not taken back their slander or admitted it was wrong and inappropriate. I have told them many times they went too far, and they always responded by doubling down on the hostility, until I laid out much of it for admins to see here. A vague mea culpa gets a free pass? You just blocked an editor for less.

  Why have I lived for years with constant insults and threats of topic-banning and permanent banning, but their bullying doesn’t even warrant recognition, much less any enforcement?  —Michael Z. 22:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  They won't repeat it, until and if they go to AE. Ymblanter's response is quite fair. You hadn't mentioned them in your report. I did. And they've been forthcoming in their response. Thanks, Lourdes 05:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Then it would be forthcoming and reasonable at least for them to strike false and defamatory statements about me.  —Michael Z. 20:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

References

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

User:Lets.Custodio making paid/ChatGPT edits

• Lets.Custodio (talk · contribs · logs)

I can't tell if this is a breach of WP:PAID or something stranger involving ChatGPT.

User:Lets.Custodio declares on their user page that Dylan Bodkin has paid them to edit 22 specific articles on food, cinema and other topics. When told that they should follow WP:PE on this, they suggested that Bodkin has no relationship with the created page and has no interest/conflict of interest in the content and left me free to choose which articles to edit (he didn't directly tell me to do this or that on this or that page) - as such, they have declined to follow WP:PE, instead continuing to add magazine-style writing and recipe blog links to the panini article they are being paid to edit, and retracting their paid declaration on Granite Bay Hilltop Seventh-day Adventist Church after it went to AfD. A plain reading of WP:PAID suggests that even if a mysterious benefactor is rewarding you financially for making edits of your own free will, for whatever unknown reason, you still have to disclose that and yo u still have to follow WP:PE.

Concerningly, the user has also been citing ChatGPT as a source for text or to "confirm information", and after being challenged on this, adding back the same text but with a recipe blog or a film site instead of ChatGPT as the cited source. Discussion is here. Some of their edits look extremely ChatGPT and I wondered if the nature of the paid gig was a third party wanting to know whether Wikipedia would accept AI-generated content. But assuming good faith they are just writing in an extremely inappropriate tone citing inappropriate sources. Belbury (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier to User Belbury, the use of ChatGPT to confirm information was done in only 2 articles, only 1 of them being paid - the Panini article (sandwich), in which I ended up forgetting to add the sources from which I got the information . However, I re-added the same text in the Panini (sandwich) article, because the fonts have already been corrected, (which are related to the written subject). Note that I added the same text because it was written by me and not by ChatGPT (as I said, I had only used it to confirm information). All my texts were written by me, therefore, the statement of the user Belbury is only because he thinks that the text is not in good tone for wikipedia. Lets.Custodio (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Obvious question. Who is Dylan Bodkin, and why is he paying you to edit Wikipedia? A mere name isn't 'disclosure'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This is my client and why he/she is paying me to edit wikipedia is up to him. Lets.Custodio (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

There does seem to be a Dylan Bodkin on the Web who is a self-employed "Ai strategist", which I gather means he's paid to tell people how to use ChatGPT in the course of their work. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Which doesn't necessarily make Lets.Custodio's claims about paid editing on Bodkin's behalf true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

If you hear a strange noise, then I apologise. It's my mind, boggling. How are you using ChatGPT to "confirm information"?—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I used DALL-E to confirm for me that Godzilla argued a case before the United States Supreme Court. There's photographic evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:ScottishFinnishRadish Lets.Custodio (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Amazing. 10/10. No notes. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:1D7A:2D19:7E12:D4A6 (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this accounts contributions and text, I wonder if the entire account isn't an AI training account, including the responses we're seeing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

One of their edits adds prose in Portugese. Maybe they're using machine translation? Because one of the sentences they added in English was Only with 17 years old, he has been in the USA National Team. Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No. I speak Portuguese and English. Lets.Custodio (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not true. This is a real and serious account. Lets.Custodio (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the sharp contrast between the style of the user's comments and article edits, this does look a lot like a non-fluent English speaker using ChatGPT to write plausible content for a quick freelance gig. The workflow for their content addition edits (particularly T-34) appears to be asking ChatGPT for some text and then searching the web for links to use as sources for whatever it wrote. Belbury (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Given the above (non)responses, I can't think of any good reason not to go straight to an indef block. Regardless of whether this is ChatGPT-assisted trolling, or sheer incompetence, Wikipedia can manage well enough without (imaginary?) anonymous-benefactor assisted timewasting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I ran an AI image detector, and it's 72% positive the image on their user page is AI generated. Similar results with their text. Obviously though this is an AI telling on an AI so who knows. I vote for an indef and a rollback of all contributions that haven't yet been reverted. Canterbury Tail talk 19:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The name, country, and profession also seem to be taken from a mid-tier Instagram influencer. Maybe it's a common name? Doesn't seem it at a glance, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking further, I lean coincidence on that detail at least, and that the image is legit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is the LinkedIn job posting. I’m still unsure what the purpose is. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Relatedly User:Swift Researcher was signing their talk page comments as "Dylan Bodkin" after being blocked for spamming just a couple of weeks ago, so this might just be some form of block evasion. Possibly as simple as wanting someone to make unrelated innocuous edits for a while (which is what Custodio claims to be doing) before handing over the account or making a particular edit relating to Swift Researcher's block. Belbury (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

On that talk page, Swift Researcher wrote: Numerai is a very interesting topic. They do have the stated goal of "monopolizing all money," after all. And they are about to hit 1 billion in AUM this year. They certainly warrant a closer look than in my view. as well as I don't work for Numerai, but they ARE quickly and quietly consuming the financial industry here in San Francisco, and I'm concerned. and If you must know my affiliation, I'm one of the competitors in their data science tournament, and I tell you that it absolutely does meet the notability guidelines. You can look me. I'm Dylan Fitzgerald Bodkin.

On the LinkedIn page for Dylan Bodkin, who posted that job listing, they list themselves as being a "Competitor" at Numerai. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Did the job posting (or is that Dylan's profile's description?) always say "day 41: I started a war with Wikipedia and I don't know why."(archive)? If not then that pretty much confirms this is the correct Dylan (despite LetsCustodio's claim to the opposite). – 2804:F14:80F5:5E01:70AF:B667:BC91:3B3B (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, good catch. He changed his status to that today. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:AD81:3108:7B98:E20F (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur. This seems an obvious indef. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This looks like the Red-Headed League's handiwork. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Based on the LinkedIn job posting and the client's profession as an "Ai strategist", I have blocked indefinitely for apparent violation of WP:NOTLAB. I don't know if the idea here was to have her write some stuff on her own and some by ChatGPT and see if we caught it, or something more complex than that, but I do not believe that this was being done for benevolent reasons. I am open to an unblock if she can give a full accounting of what was actually going on here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

See also:

• pt:Special:Contributions/Lets.Custodio
• commons:Special:Contributions/Lets.Custodio

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Added this irrelevant link to the pt.wikipedia article on pt:Johannes Vermeer

• futurelearn.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.futurelearn.com

FutureLearn is legit, so I don't think this is exactly spam, but…

I also left a note at Commons:

• commons:Commons:Administrators noticeboard#User:Lets.Custodio

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Commons is deleting some images as copyvios. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh look — another editor who's made suspect edits to Numerai and disclosed being paid to edit. Who does it disclose as paying them? Why, "on behalf of Dylan". 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hours after Swift Research (Dylan) was blocked, another user started editing Numerai too, and got themselves banned for promotional spam. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Aaaaand this IP joined in recently. The IP is attached to California State University, and possibly to San Francisco. Dylan's LinkedIn lists himself as an alumnus of California State University San Diego, and currently residing in San Francisco.

Neither the IP nor Sukhaniseema1993 has been blocked. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Good catches, 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57!

Sukhaniseema1993 (talk · contribs) is playing by the rules (after being told about them); I left this person a link to this conversation along with a note that Mr. Bodkin is problematic. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the Numerai edits that have been reverted appear to have adequate references. If the text is supported by the references, we should consider adding. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Might be worth semi-protecting Numerai, or even ECP given the seeming relentlessness of these editors. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Lets.Custodio appears to have just been banned for socking. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Zebra12789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Just added to their talk page: As I was starting my contributions, my employer asked me to choose pages to edit, as he would like to see what my writing/creation style was. After that he would tell me what content he would like me to edit.

AGF and all, but to me this lends credence to the possibility Belbury noted above, where Dylan is paying Lets.Custodio to build up an innocuous editing history before sharing the pages (Numerai) he wants them to edit. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:3183:BC1D:FFEB:CE57 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

pt.wikipedia notice:

• pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos/Notificação de incidentes#Lets.Custodio

-A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - We really ought to have a specialized noticeboard for any AI/LLM-related incidents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This situation seems patently bizarre, and based on the links above, I have noticed something still more confusing. Dylan's LinkedIn indicates that he is hiring one of these:

Wikipedia Researcher

Job Description:

I am in need of an entry-level Wikipedia Researcher to conduct detailed and precise research on specific topics. Both, attention to detail and the ability to deliver accurate information are crucial.

Responsibilities:

- Read, and interpret Wikipedia articles.

- Make edits or contributions that improve the readability, structure, and utility of Wikipedia articles.

- Conduct research on a specified topic with a professional, scientific, or journalistic mindset.

- Gather a comprehensive and reliable set of primary sources.

- Verify the accuracy of information by investigating and fact-checking

- Participate in the peer review process.

Requirements:

Strong research skills, with an ability to navigate and utilize Wikipedia effectively.

Familiarity with conducting research, fact-checking, and verifying information.

Excellent attention to detail and a commitment to delivering accurate and reliable results.

Proficiency in organizing and documenting research findings in a structured manner.

Strong communication skills and the ability to collaborate effectively.

Previous experience with Wikipedia research or similar projects is a plus.

What did he mean by this? jp×g 05:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me as if he is advertising for a paid editor while bending over backwards to make it look like something other than that and avoid having the person be classed as a paid editor. The key is "Make edits or contributions that improve the readability, structure, and utility of Wikipedia articles." Most of the rest is either camouflage, or simply outlines necessary skills for making edits which will pass muster. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

BTW, who is this person and how can they be banned in absentia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Swift Researcher (talk · contribs) was blocked on 3 June for making promotional edits to the Numerai article, identifying themselves several times on their talk page as Dylan Bodkin. Belbury (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Searching any quote from this listing reveals the other place he posted it — on UpWork. (Archived here.)

From this, we can see that he has formally hired three people to do this job, and has paid each $100 thus far. One is User:Sukhaniseema1993 ("they have been paid by UpWork on behalf of Dylan") and one is presumably User:Lets.Custodio here ("I wasn't even hired through LinkedIn"). So... who's the third? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:AD81:3108:7B98:E20F (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Lets.Custodio had previously openly linked to their Upwork profile on their Wikipedia user page; a profile that went dark around the time of their block yesterday evening. I don't know if the Zebra account was trying to remove those links from the page.

204.102.74.5 (talk · contribs) looks like a candidate for the third Upwork user. They started to edit Wikipedia on the 5th, the day after Lets.Custodio, making a few random edits and adding a mention of Numerai to Alcor Life Extension Foundation. They then waited for the semi-protection to expire on Numerai before editing the article directly. Belbury (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Highlighting this catch above from the IP beginning with 2804: on Dylan's LinkedIn, his current status has been changed at some point in the past ≈9 hours to read day 41: I started a war with Wikipedia and I don't know why. That's as good a confirmation of him being behind this whole campaign as we're going to get, it seems. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:AD81:3108:7B98:E20F (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This is just so weird. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Day 41: my sense of entitlement continues undiminished as I pay people to waste the time of volunteers who have innumerable things they'd rather be doing..." XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This guy sounds like a self-employed troll. Perhaps we put the word out among for-pay Wikipedia editors that they need to demand more money from him. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Not 100% convinced is connected, as the asker seems to have been around at least 2 years ^{(unless a sleeper. I didn’t really sweep their contribs)}, but the usability of ChatGPT got brought up at the Teahouse recently. MM (Errors.) ^{(Successful Ops)} 01:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI: there’s a AI draft policy being developed:

• Wikipedia:Large language models

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Persistent creation of non-notable articles

I've nominated half a dozen articles for deletion, by the same user (Amaekuma), that all follow the same formula of creating pages for Nigerian "entrepreneurs" or "social media personalities" and are entirely made-up of refs from those semi-legit looking paid-promotional articles you're seeing more of nowadays. Probable WP:PAID I do mostly gnomish work, so I dont know what to do about this, other than report it here. Nswix (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy links:

• Amaekuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

20 days out of 21 days in 3 weeks, Wikipedia is locked from being edited by Nigerian IP addresses. 8 out of 10 Wikipedia articles about Nigerians are pulled down.

Look, if you all don’t want Nigerians editing Wikipedia, just say it. Because this is nothing more than targeted witch-hunting and institutionalized racism (that is my personal observation). I see the same thing in Indian Wikipedia and other non Caucasian majority countries. WHAT HAPPENED TO WIKIPEDIA INCLUSIVITY?

Stick to what you know, I doubt you are more exposed or educated than me on Nigerian topics. Neither do I believe you are more educated than I am. If you all don’t believe in my ability to edit, that’s a damn shame on you, not me. Amaekuma (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusivity does not mean that we must allow inappropriate content to remain. It doesn't matter if you are Nigerian or American or from the planet Vulcan.

Are you a paid editor, or have a connection to these topics? 331dot (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking other editors. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Look, I’m a human being. You don’t bring up terms like “paid editing” and “persistent creation of non notable pages” and not expect a reaction.

First of all, Wikipedia is about EQUITY and INCLUSIVENESS. There are hundreds of pages about American social media influencers and entrepreneurs (if you want me to show you examples, I can pull them out ASAP because these are the pages I even drew inspiration from before I created those ones). So why is the Nigerian entrepreneur a problem to you?? Or Are you expecting me to give Forbes and Wall Street Journal articles and citations on Nigerian entrepreneurs? These are Nigerian entrepreneurs for God’s sake.

This is what we talk about when we say EQUITY and not EQUALITY, because it’s different strokes for different folks. I cited Nigerian Business Day articles for you to cover Nigerian entrepreneurs but it’s of no consequence to you because it’s not New York Times. Amaekuma (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@331dotConsider blocking this guy he clearly doesn't understand what is he doing wrong and even attacks people because of it. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Amaekuma You still haven't answered my question. Whether something is related to Nigeria does not factor into this. I absolutely believe you that there are other inappropriate articles. If you are aware of other articles that violate our guidelines, you are welcome to identify them so action can be taken. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate things to get by us. This does not mean that more inappropriate content should be added. See other stuff exists.

Beware in using other articles as a model unless they are classified as good articles.

Please link to the page which says "Wikipedia is about equity and inclusiveness" because I've never seen that before in my many years here. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

And since you demand EQUITY and INCLUSIVENESS, I am happy to inform you that articles on Nigerian subjects are equally and inclusively subject to the same notability requirements as any other articles on subjects anywhere else in the world. Ravenswing 01:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Its not institutionalized racism. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. And its not racism to say something isn't notable. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Amaekuma has worked on a lot of articles. Some of those are entrepreneurs. To read the original report, it sounds like a WP:SPA or WP:PAID editor. Actually looking at this person's contributions, they work on a variety of topics. Mass nomination followed by characterization of the creator as acting in bad faith puts a heavy burden on one person, and makes it easy for no-effort rapid-fire delete !votes (followed by blocking suggestions [!]) from editors like DarkHorseMayhem.

Amaekuma, while having several articles nominated at once is a huge frustration, I know, any creation of multiple articles for entrepreneurs, executives, start-ups, influencers, YouTubers, etc. will attract a heightened degree of scrutiny because that is prime subject matter for paid editing -- something we have to deal with on a daily basis. They are also frequently some of the worst articles on Wikipedia, so I agree it's hard to find a good model. I think that if Nswix did a closer look at your body of contributions, they would've come to a different conclusion, but I'm also not surprised that someone saw a bunch of those subjects created by the same person and got concerned. I can't speak to their motivation, but for these kinds of subjects, it usually doesn't matter which nationality they are (which isn't to say there aren't a wide range of systemic biases affecting these articles and our processes). At this stage, my recommendation would be to choose the three-to-four best sources about each subject, put them in the AfD (with an explanation of why the source is good), and move on from there. In the meantime, I hope that Nxwix, et al. will pause their nominations so these can actually be assessed properly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

By trying to put me down just because i have my own opinion wont change fact that user created articles that are not notable at all, dont want to repeat what Nswix already said mutiple times. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

While someone creating a lot of articles that are later deleted may be cause for concern, it is usually not justification for sanctions such as blocks. Remember that blocking is primarily preventative, not punitive. Blocking a good-faith editor could do more harm than good. This ANI thread seems like an unnecessary escalation if a talk page discussion could have just resolved the conflict; there has been seemingly no attempts to communicate any grievances before this. The only real sanctionable behaviour is Amaekuma's comments in this thread, i.e. assertions of ignorance and racism, which are arguably personal attacks. If you have evidence that they have "put you down" for your opinion, please provide diffs of this happening. You'll accomplish a lot more (both here and elsewhere on Wikipedia) by providing evidence of clear breaches of policy. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Arguably??? EEng 16:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

''If you have evidence that they have "put you down" for your opinion, please provide diffs of this happening.''They clearly did but anyway im not main problem here but editor who create many not-notable articles. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of Amaekuma's creations, like Princess Pat Ajudua and Ebenezer Akinola definitely seem to pass GNG, and are appropriately not at AfD. Other articles, not so much. Agree that our entrepreneur and influencer bios are typically trash-tier, regardless of nationality, and often smell WP:PAID. Familiarity with WP:N and WP:RS should help Amaekuma with their future creations much more than using as templates existing promotional junk articles sourced to churnalism and paid interviews. Folly Mox (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agree. To be honest, some of the articles sent to AfD could quite easily have been G11 speedied - they're clearly not notable people. But some are OK - if Amaekuma could concentrate on those, we'd be good. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite can you delete those that are G11 case? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems that other editors have de-promo'd many of them anyway. However, they all appear to be heading for deletion anyway, so I think it's moot. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Please, everybody slow down. I'm working my way through the list of AfDs at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nigeria. The several that I've looked at were well-sourced by major Nigerian papers -- ones I read while in Nigeria. See Newspapers published in Nigeria. The language in these papers is florid but that's the Nigerian style. We do need more coverage of Nigerian entrepreneurs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You basically didn't do anything expect tell that something is notable just because its in country news papers, but ok. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

DarkHorseMayhem, Nigeria is the 6th most populous country on the Earth. It has 4 times the population of the United Kingdom. Coverage in the national newspapers of a country that size is a big deal. Were you expecting the The Los Angeles Times or The Toronto Star instead?--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@DarkHorseMayhem (talk · contribs), please watch out for anything that could violate our WP:CANVASS rules. These edits [58][59] asking for AfD votes, in the context of discussions with an editor who is nominating similar articles are, at best, borderline. I know you're newish here -- know that this can be a very big deal. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Im not sure what are you trying to say but im not manipulating anyone i have my own opinion and decision its simple as that. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not about manipulating other people; it's about vote-stacking. Please read that guideline very carefully. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Those whole section and disuccion doesn't have anything do to with me just asking someone what they opin. on some article is. Don't make things complicated when there is no reason for that. Thats all. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, folks can look at those diffs and decide for themselves. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have looked at the diffs and decided for myself that they constitute canvassing. There are many Nigerian entrepreneurs with Wikipedia articles that should probably be deleted, but there are are many more similar American entrepreneurs. Let's target them all, not just the ones from the third world. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Then nominate them for deletion?DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If I had infinite time available for editing Wikipedia I would. Unfortunately I don't. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

(blinks) Articles on NN American entrepreneurs are nominated for deletion/prod all the time. Why would you think that articles on NN Nigerian entrepreneurs are singled out? Ravenswing 01:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

DarkHorseMayhem, you're quite right that we don't need to make things needlessly complicated. So, in the spirit of keeping it simple: you canvassed. Don't do it again. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Blatant canvassing, and Nswix seemed happy to accept canvassing. Reminder, folks: to assert something is not notable is to assert sources showing notability do not exist. That is not something that can be ascertained in one minute. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to assert with any credibility that sources showing notability do not exist, because it would involve proving a negative. What can be asserted is that sources showing notability have not been found, which is sufficient for our purposes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course. Agree with the first part, but it's not "have not been found"; it's "I have not been able to find them". i.e. we don't presume that because the sources aren't already right in front of me, as soon as I click on the AfD, that they don't exist. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

A major side issue is that some of the major Nigerian newspapers are more than willing to publish paid-for trash promo articles like this and this where a 17-year old entrepreneur is supposedly in the news for, er, no idea what, the articles are full of praise and extremely thin on actual info on any achievements, contracts, products, ... The page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musa Muhammed (entrepreneur), where user A. B. is the sole voice defending it because these sources are the Nigerian national newspapers, the same claim they make here. But if this leads us to paid-for promotion, then we should deprecate or blacklist theses sources, not accept their rubbish. See also the history of Draft:Musa Muhammed Olayinka to get an idea of the many attempts to get this into Wikipedia. While Amaekuma is not involved in this article, it shows part of the background to these issues, and the problems with some of the major Nigerian sources. Fram (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Major newspapers are not necessarily reliable newspapers, and A. B. has not picked up on that yet. The Guardian source throws around phrases such as "making waves", "natural flair for business" and "a keen eye for detail". If that isn't promotional, I don't know what is. There needs to be a wider discussion on Nigerian sources and promotion in general. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a really tough situation. I think we sometimes try to view all the world's media through one set of journalistic norms, and there are certainly some users who seem to see "definite paid PR" where others don't, but those two examples are, well, pretty obvious IMO. It's not just a Nigerian newspapers issue, of course -- this is something that happens all over the world. We just know less about Nigerian papers to know what to look for. Best we have is something like this excellent project, but it's also limited. It does, however, note that for the Guardian, unbylined articles or those attributed to "Editor" are likely promotional and should not be considered reliable. Based on the other article you linked, maybe Vanguard should have a similar warning. I still think one of the most valuable things the Foundation could do for editors is to fund projects to describe sources and media ecosystems in different parts, effectively expanding and vetting the source guide, adding context, and translating those findings into as many languages as possible... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Amaekuma has now disclosed a conflict of interest for two article subjects. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I posted this in one of the AfDs, which A.B. has graciously recognized:

Nigerian newspapers in particular are well known to flout broadcasting rules on paid advertising. Professor Omenugha describes a similar trend in the print media: “In the newspapers, the so called specialised pages of the property, IT and computer businesses and finance pages are prime examples of commercialised spaces. The point is that no attempt is made to let the audience or readers know that these spaces are paid for and they end up holding them as sacred as they would news”. Some journalists also work as paid consultants to politicians and businesses thus threatening professionalism. AIT’s Amarere says it is demeaning to journalism as “some of the concerned journalists now work for companies through which they obtain jobs. They cover their track by saying they are staff of this or that company and run offices outside the newsroom. In this situation it is difficult to balance profession with commercial interest”. "Awards" issued by media are also considered corrupt. “The awards are not free, they are for money and anything that comes with a prize has implications”, says Olumide Adeyinka-Fusika, a lawyer. “If a newspaper names a bank as the best bank of the year and the bank is later indicted for corruption, that newspaper will not be willing to publish the story because that will be like passing a vote of no confidence on their own judgement”. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Just that one, a few, or even the majority of news sources in Nigeria (or India) may blur the distinction between news and advertising doesn't mean that they all do, just as many news sources in the UK or the US are unreliable and/or promotional. There seems to be a willingness on one side to accept all sources from the country involved and on the other side to write off a whole country's sources, including the most populous and sixth most populous countries in the world. Much better would be to regard all news as primary sources as the rest of the academic world does. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks to JoelleJay for researching this. I've subsequently amended some of my AfD opinions. I should still caution that from my short time in Nigeria, the local journalism style is colorful and florid even when reporting the weather.

We have multiple Nigerian articles at AfD created independently by multiple editors. Note that it's reasonable that we would keep getting more Nigerian BLPs every week even without paid editing -- the country is huge (4 times the population of the U.K.).

It's troubling to consider that we're going to get articles about truly notable sources where these big national newspapers are the main sources. How do we separate the sheep from the goats? If we just dismiss these sources out of hand, we risk making Nigeria a black hole for content. It's a conundrum.

Perhaps an RfC on reliable Nigerian sources would be helpful (but not here on WP:ANI).--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton - WP:IDHT/POV-Pushing

So alongside the works I do on WP, I create a lot of pages for Muslim and Foreign Resistance Fighters in France during WW2, I create them or improve them in French, and then I translate them in English. In this line of work, I did Abdelkader Mesli, Bel Hadj El Maafi, Yahi Saïd and Mehedine Ben Mohamed Azouz. I had no issue whatsoever on any of these pages, but only on Djaafar Khemdoudi, which (like the others) I created in French and then translated in English.

When there was no issue about their nationality or ethnicity, I had no problem listing them as simply Algerians, such as Yahi Saïd for example (that was created in French before all of that arose), just to dismiss any POV-Pushing from my part. I took contact with the family of Djaafar Khemdoudi to know if they had sources about him, and they told me about him and the fact that as long as they knew him, he never considered himself as an Algerian. Thus, I added in the English and French WP that he was a Frenchman from Algerian origins, since Algerians under colonial French rule were considered Indigenes, but not a Foreign nation, and when the country had it's independance, Djaafar Khemdoudi was in France and didn't request the passport or anything linked to Algeria. I was at that time trying to have the family to send to WP the documents and sources they had about him, which were certificates, letters and most importantly, his photography, which was the most important to me, because it's better to have a profile picture on Wikipedia.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Additionnaly, they sent me sources speaking about him, notably one from the Arolsen Archives^[6][7] and one from a chapter made by Kamel Mouellef about him, since he wrote extensively about Resistance Fighters that were forgotten due to being strangers, such as the FTP-MOI or from the French colonies (mainly Algeria and Vietnam).^[8] I also consulted them about an article from a site that I believed was a newspaper, but which appeared to be a blog (and blogs aren't allowed on Wikipedia). They told me that it had many errors, and some truths.

Then, I came back to the page and I saw that M. Bitton had started to work on the page as well, as I was still on talks with the family to have them approve the fact to give the rights to a free licence. He used the blog to say that he was Algerian and not French.

I promptly removed that by saying that I was in contact with the family and they had told me that he wasn't Algerian and never considered himself like that and that I waited for more sources to come to show that, but I couldn't if they weren't ok to give them to Wikimedia Commons for use. He reverted and went on the offensive, saying that it was defended in the blog-source and that it was sufficient to enforce it. I trusted him and didn't check the blog-source, that I added in the first place, thinking that indeed, it was usable, but told him that the family had told me that there were a lot of issues on that particular blog (not only on the citizenship but also on the medals that Djaafar Khemdoudi had, or stuff like that). I also tried to explain to him, since I was just finishing reading the book of Marc André^[9] about Djaafar Khemdoudi and Bel Hadj El Maafi, that former french resistants such as those two could have very difficult links to Algeria and the independence movement of Algeria. As you can see on the page of Bel Hadj El Maafi, which was his superior in the French Resistance, that he was against the independence of Algeria, and was attacked by a terror attack from independence fighters because he was collaborating with the French authorities against the independence of Algeria, and such, saying that he was Algerian was strange. I also said that I wouldn't work more on the page since all of that went bad. BTW, he didn't participate at all in the redaction of the article, all he did was use the blog to say that he was Algerian, the 99% of the article were made by me and took weeks of research and reading.

He didn't say anything, and some days later, as the family had given me the link to the Arolsen article, which stated that on their demand, he was considered as a Frenchman by the International Archives on Nazi Persecution, I decided to add the sentence : He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family which was sourced from the Arolsen article and was thus something of satisfactory. I also added in the conclusion of the article that his Algerian background created issues among the French Resistants, which didn't recognize him as a real resistant. I thought it was settled since M. Bitton didn't intervene for a little month on the page, and the nuanced approach was able to find a consensus (I also added the pictures and developped the articles on other points) + I made in French/English the page of Georges Durand, which was another resistance fighter in link with Djaafar Khemdoudi, to whom he sent people to save, it seems.

But then, earlier today, he came from nowhere and removed all the changes, which accounted for something like +10 sources and 6000 characters and then started defending again his POV in the talk page, to which I responded by saying that the source from Arolsen indeed said what I had put, he refused it, then agreed seemingly to it, but started speaking with profanity language, accusing me personally and engage in an Edit war. You can find all of that in the talk page here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Djaafar_Khemdoudi That's when I saw that the source he was using was from a blog, and when he was confronted with it, he didn't like it. Then I went to see his contributions and the articles he created and saw that he was somewhat of a WP:SPA. He created two pages, one on a mosque and one on the Memorial to the Liberation of Algeria. Since he didn't manage to give any reliable source, engaged in disruptive behavior, personal attacks and edit wars, I ask for a warning against him, to restore the article prior to the removal of content and to forbid him to engage in this article in the future.AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that he was flagged and already the subject of several notices here for the same kind of issues with Algeria and Algerian nationalism too. AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• What does that make you? A French nationalist POV pusher (pushing their mumbo jumbo based on WP:OR on fr.wp and here too?? Anyway, at some point you will need to understand that you are not a reliable source. Once this simple fact hits home, everything will fall into place. As for your nice suggestions, there is no point in holding back when adding insults to injury: you might as well add tarring and feathering to the list to make it complete. M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not at all, I made pages and modifications on a lot of subjects, not just France, for example working extensively on pages speaking against French nationalism, such as pages on far right in France, or Islamophobia in France or French nationalist terrorism directed against foreigners, where I was attacked by POV-Pushers also that tried to change the facts. Accusing me of being the source won't help you neither ; since I added +10, that weren't me, as you could perfectly see and understand (at least I hope so).

  Returning the accusation and not responding to anything won't help your case. Also, responding somewhat to your disruptive behavior by trying a defence in the talk page of Djaafar Khemdoudi when you see yourself being reported isn't a nice method either, you should have done so since days, or even since the beginning. It's nice to see you answer more than 10 words now that you know you are flagged. AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  he was considered as a Frenchman by the International Archives on Nazi Persecution typical French nationalist POV pushing. Here's how Arolsen describes him.

  he came from nowhere this is hilarious.

  This is you removing my comment from the talk page and then disappearing after being warned not to repeat it (no point in pretending that you didn't do in on purpose, because I don't and will never ever believe you). M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't write that, you are lying, I wrote : He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family and used the article that the woman in charge of his file made, not a vulgarization attempt on Twitter (which isn't usable either, such as blogs, btw). She said : It is also important to his children that their father is listed as a Frenchman in the Arolsen Archives and not as an Algerian – after all, he fought in the French resistance.

  You said on the talk page that this wasn't what the article from Arolsen said, but it is, indeed. The sentence I wrote is exactly rendering what the source says.^[1]

  Yes, you came from nowhere, and never worked to anything on the page, except POV-Pushing about his citizenship and reverting anything what didn't suit you. You fail to adress all the other points of my report, btw.

  Now, about your accusations that I'm a French nationalist of any sort for transcribing litteraly the source of Arolsen's official communications (and not their twitter posts, sorry about that), I already defended myself of that in both the talk page and here, showing you that for the page of Yahi Saïd for example, that I created prior to your edit war, and even prior to Djaafar Khemdoudi in English (so prior to your intervention of any sort), he was mentioned as being an Algerian Resistance Fighter. You don't believe me if that suits you, but the facts are the facts. Also, as you can understand, maybe, writing extensively about Muslim Resistance Fighters or Colonial Resistance Fighters, as I did, isn't being a French nationalist. Also, defending the usage of Islamophobia in terrorist attacks against French Muslims or non-French Muslims on the talk page of "Far Right terrorist attacks" in the French Wikipedia (which btw I did at 50%), isn't a sign of French nationalism bias. Also, the fact to add "Islamophobia" (with sources) to political french movements that declare themselves as being leftist, while attacking immigrants, especially Algerians, isn't being pro-French nationalism neither. I was even attacked by French nationalists media outlets about this and the French Wikipedia, even if some POV-Pushers and other WP:SPA tried to have me cancel as an "islamogauchiste", decided that I was right.^[2][3]

  Here, the report is about you, nevertheless, and the fact that despite being reported multiple times for issues relating to the Algerian/Morrocan disputes or Algeria, or being a WP:SPA mainly contributing about Northern Africa, and mostly Algeria, you continue this kind of disruptive behavior, edit waring and POV-Pushing, don't try to revert the accusation, as I already said, it's not the first time you are being flagged for similar behaviour. Let the admins do their job. AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Stop misrepresenting the Arolsen source: if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense). As for Arolsen, its official Twitter account describes him as Algerian (regardless of what the average nationalist thinks, wink, wink).

  The rest of your mumbo jumbo will be ignored as I wasted too much time with you. I suggest you familiarize yourself with our important policies and not the ones that you could use against those you disagree with. I'm done here (others are welcome to ping me should they wish).

  Here, the report is about you Wrong! It's about you too. Welcome to ANI! M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• There's some oddities and complicated issues going on here, but I think they can be reduced if we start at the top.
  • @AgisdeSparte: what the family said in contact to you is probably irrelevant per WP:RS (see also: WP:ABOUTSELF). We follow what's published in reliable sources. Your interviews with the family are WP:OR. We will occasionally have debates here on whether OR as to source accuracy is a legitimate basis for the exclusion (rather than the inclusion) of content—my position has always been "no", though I know some well-established editors disagree. (Separately, I worry that you see yourself as a representative of the family in this situation, and that's a dangerous spot to be in. For example, you relied on one source that said: "It is also important to his children that their father is listed as a Frenchman in the Arolsen Archives and not as an Algerian". But, while I don't approve of M.Bitton's language, I do think that's probably not the most relevant fact. How his children want him to be remembered doesn't really count for much.
  • @M.Bitton: I think you were a bit aggressive in reverting each other. In general, a mass revert should probably be a last resort. It tends to escalate conflicts if you say, "I disagree with this portion of the edit, so I'm reverting the whole thing." That said, I think agree that AgisdeSparte's argument for removing the cited statements that they did was problematic.
  • I've only skimmed the talk page / sources, but am I correct in understanding that Khemdoudi was born in modern day Algeria at a time when Algeria was a French colony; he opposed Algerian independence; and some reliable sources describe him as Algerian while some do not? I'm not sure how clearly MOS:NATIONALITY or WP:MODERNPLACENAME address that situation; hopefully another editor can clear this up. While nationality at birth sometimes seems to control (Anatoly Dyatlov is described Soviet, not Russian), it seems to me that in situations involving colonies, we often disregard colonial status—Mahatma Gandhi is described as Indian; George Washington is described as American. But of course, both of those figures supported independence, while Khemdoudi opposed independence. So I checked out List of Loyalists (American Revolution), and I noticed, least based on the first four, that we usually don't include "American" in their bios (see John Agnew, Andrew Allen, and William Allen). I think that should at least suggest that we shouldn't describe Khemdoudi as Algerian and that we should, as AgisdeSparte suggests, call him Algerian-born.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple: opposing the independence that happened decades after what made him notable, even if it was a fact, still wouldn't make him French. The Harkis literally fought other Algerians, yet they are described as Algerians and not Algerian-born (because that's what they were to themselves, to the French and to everyone else). M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Then maybe to solve this issue we can say, as I did for Bel Hadj El Maafi that he was French-Algerian or Algerian-French, which one suits you best. AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources describe him as Algerian. Why the double standard? Were the Harkis French-Algerians or Algerian-French? Would we have this discussion if he was a terrorist? M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The Harkis is off-topic, they lived in French Algeria, not in the Metropolis for all of their life ; also, what we could do is replace my message "He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family" with the beginning being "An Algerian at birth, he is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family"

This was a message that shows his Algerian background clearly AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Or even "An Algerian, he is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family"

Which is even more telling AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The subject of the Harkis and how Algerians were viewed by the French before, during and after the world wars is very much on topic. Basically, they were never considered as French (even if they died multiple times for France).

I repeat: Stop misrepresenting the Arolsen source: if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense). As for Arolsen, its official Twitter account describes him as Algerian.

Would we have this discussion if he was a terrorist? M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense) ... that actually doesn't necessarily follow, especially in a case where the nationality is disputed or complex, as this one is. Gandhi's kids probably don't want Gandhi identified as British even though he may have technically been a British national according to British rules at the time of his birth. Also: I think it would be best if both of you stopped commenting here for a bit unless asked a question by another user. This section is already fairly long (and largely duplicative of what's already in the fairly long talk page section), and so far I'm the only outside party who's commented ... and this is only my second post.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If he was French, why would his kids wish for him to be classified as French? The Algerians were not French nationals (even the Harkis who fought other Algerians were not considered as such and were treated like human garbage when they landed in France). M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"The Algerians were not French nationals" So, as I understand the British system, "subjects" in British colonies were considered British nationals, but not British citizens. Per the sources I could find, at the turn of the century, Algerians were considered French subjects, though they were not given French citizenship until 1947. That said, this is all really beside the point (and it'd be SYNTH to cross reference like this). The question here isn't really "Do some sources describe him as French and some as Algerian?" The question is whether it's appropriate to describe him as Algerian unequivocally. That question can't be answered by mere reference to the fact that some sources describe him as Algerian; it has to be answered by considering sources on the whole and whether his nationality is a point of controversy. If it is, then there's probably nothing lost by merely noting that he was born in Algeria.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that he was Algerian is important because that's the main reason he and others like him were "forgotten" in the first place. The source in the lead of the article and the ones cited in the discussion explain this in details (had it not been for the work that was carried out by the great-grandson of an Algerian tirailleur, they would still be unknown to the public... because they weren't French). Also, while we have two RS that describe as Algerian, we have none whatsoever that describe him as French. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is he most known for being forgotten? It's not mentioned till the last section! But fair enough. I'm going to try to add back some of AgisdeSparte's non-controversial edits, and as for this discussion let's let others comment.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

He is known for being one of the Algerian heroes who have been "forgotten" despite what they did (the same goes for other Maghrebi heroes). M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no issue about the fact that he was Algerian, as I stated in every position since the first discussion, including every proposition and including the sentence that I putted from Arolsen, and which was designed to grant a nuanced approach on the page. It was also something I added in the last sentence, when I spoke about the ARM opposing him to have a plaque because he was from Algerian background, which I stated. However, the fact is that he is indeed considered French and not Algerian by the Arolsen archives after a request from his family, which I sourced, and which was, as M. Bitton even recognized (after denying that this source said that) a nuance of the fact that he was French, to show his palimpseste and difficult memory, as was stated in the book by Marc André quoted above which defended him and his memory on Montluc Prison.

Being "known for being forgotten" is a contradictory statement, btw, if I did this page (alongside others which didn't pose this kind of issues), it was to help to the memory and recognition of these kind of forgotten resistance fighters, who nobody cares about, because they were from foreign background, such as Maghrebis, but also Armenians, for example Sarkis Bedikian that I did too. However, as was stated by Marc André in his book on Montluc, the memory of a lot of Algerian fighters, such as Djaafar Khemdoudi, or Bel Hadj El Maafi, was that, being against the independence of Algeria, and being attacked by Algerians wanting independence, they found themselves being separated from their Algerian compatriots as well as from their French compatriots, which saw them with suspicion during the Algerian War, though there isn't any source about that kind of suspicion against Djaafar Khemdoudi (contrary to Bel Hadj El Maafi). Thus they were in somewhat a no man's land in terms of memory and allegiances. I also worked on the page of another collaborator of the French colonial power, Kaddour Benghabrit, which was Algerian/Moroccan/French and who found himself in a similar position, even going as far as his own family, since his son, that defended the independence of Algeria, was repudiated by him and removed from the office he had at the Great Mosque of Paris. Thus, doing, by Algerian nationalism or irredentism, of those figures and their allegiances monolithic ones is a mistake, since they found themselves in very difficult waters, and at least had several allegiances, if they didn't repudiate altogether their origins, thus not identifying themselves with the colonized nations but with the colonizers instead (who didn't consider them as such in some cases).

What I was requesting was the removal of M. Bitton from this page, since he didn't participate at all in it, except by creating problems and trying to change the introduction, all the work of research and synthesis was done by myself and all the Wikipedia page as well. By engaging in disruptive actions, repeted bad faith, refusal to compromise (even presented with sources), refusing to agree with consensual or nuanced positions (such as the sentence I putted from Arolsen), which indeed showed that he was considered French AT THE REQUEST OF HIS FAMILY, and thus wasn't French in an absolute sense, by doing personal attacks also, he evidently broke several of the founding principles of Wikipedia and deserves at least a warning.

To show you the kind of bad faith (even if +5 reports on him in the ANI didn't suffice, always on the subject of Algeria, btw), he removed the ANI notice from his talk page (a thing that he does consistently) and then flagged me for edit warring, 3 minutes only after I reported him here for edit warring. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop with your nonsense and read what the I and the other editor wrote! I have some very bad news for you: creating an article doesn't make it yours (learn to live with this fact or find yourself another hobby).

As for the request, here's mine: the admins ought to examine your nationalist POV pushing, the ownership issue and your edit warring over your WP:OR (see my comments and that of Jerome Frank Disciple).

he removed the ANI notice from his talk page (a thing that he does consistently) and then flagged me for edit warring, 3 minutes only after I reported him here for edit warring That's a lie. Unlike you, when I call someone a liar, I back it up with diffs: you were warned for edit warring at 15:46 and you filed a report at 18:22.

There is also the issue of the undisclosed WP:COI (given the admitted contact between the OP and the family). M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Want to shorten this up a bit? 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:AgisdeSparte - What I can see is that you don't like the editing of User:M.Bitton, and that you post at length, and that your lengthy posts do not explain what your complaint is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I may be able to help somewhat, Robert McClenon, as an editor completely uninvolved in this dispute who knows about some other parts of the topic area.

• • Until the Algerian War of Independence, Algeria was neither a colony nor a territory nor a protectorate, but a département of France, in other words, constitutionally *France* even though it is on the other side of the Mediterranean from what is called "metropolitan" France, containing the other départements.
  • Although France does not have birthright citizenship, if Djaafar Khemdoudi was born within the borders of the French department of Algérie, before its independence, I do not know what else we would call him. Certainly, Albert Camus, born in Oran, is considered French, but of course his family at some point were French settlers. (pieds-noirs) Thinking back, I cannot quite affirm that there was not some second-class citizenship for indigenous Algerians, but I believe that in that country, systemic racism produced something more like a class/caste system and I am fairly certain that there were separate justice systems. But if he had a passport it would have been French.
  • the discussion of the British patriality concept ("national" vs "citizen") is correct afaik but completely irrelevant, and only demonstrates that the British manifested their vitriolic ethnocentrism quite differently than the French did. There is a complete and total lack of any resemblance between French Napoleonic law and the British common law system. We're talking black holes versus flamingoes, Camembert versus blade servers.
  • I recently encountered AgisdeSparte at a completely different article on a completely different topic that I would prefer not to discuss here, as it would bring more heat than light to this section, which is cluttered enough. I found him very easy to talk to, academic in his work, and very civil with another editor whose edits would require me to provide diffs if I discussed them. I really wish he had talked to me about this article before coming here, as his post above really does show that he is accustomed to the sourcing practices at French Wikipedia, (from which I frequently translate). This does not mean that AdeS cannot work within our sourcing guidelines. I have seen him do so, recently. However the discussion we had at that article, beyond its specific content issues at the time, had to do with me asking for help with some long-standing issues I have had with Arabic-language sources, rather than me offering him help with en-wikipedia sourcing policies, which he did not seem at the time to need, at all.

TL;DR: I am currently on a short wikibreak from World War 2 drama and do not want to be drawn into the particulars here, but perhaps I've given some context to what the issue is: This is definitely way too much drama over whether a French Resistance fighter was in fact French. I don't see how he could *not* be French however.

• @AgisdeSparte:, the wishes of his family carry no weight here. What you need is a solid reliable source for his place of birth and preferably his citizenship, since someone has now called that into question. I am unfamiliar with the source you are talking about, but an obituary in a French daily newspaper would be fine, for example. I can help you parse the guidelines as to your source's use in the article if you wish. Under en-wikipedia guidelines, you should not have contacted the family, however.
• @M.Bitton:, I have no opinion on the notability of this fighter, but in the topic area of the French Resistance in general, if significant assertions about a Resistance fighter can be adequately sourced (in any language, not just English) then we have been treating them as notable. Even if you suspect that they are famous for being forgotten.
• Robert McClendon, despite the red flags here for RGW, older conventional wisdom on the identity of French resistance fighters truly does have some historiographical issues. I urge you not to dismiss this question out of hand despite its rocky start. Affiliation with countries that didn't exist during World War II, either yet or any more, is a lurking problem in the topic area that may need to be globally addressed and that I have seen elsewhere in the past week My hands are very full right now, so while I will clarify any of my above remarks that seem unclear, I would ask to be excused from further participation in this dispute. Hopefully I have now pulled the thread out of the weeds a bit though?
• MB and AdeS, Jerome Frank Disciple is correct in saying that the thing to do at this point is await comment from others. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Elinruby - Evidently, in saying that User:AgisdeSparte used too many words and said nothing, I used too few words, because you sort of answered a question that I didn't ask. You were trying to explain to me what the content dispute is. I wasn't asking what the content dispute was. This is WP:ANI, which is a conduct forum, and AgisdeSparte went on at length complaining about the edits of User:M.Bitton without really explaining what either the content issue is or what the conduct issue is. The point I was trying to make is that AgisdeSparte was wasting pixels and wasting the time of the community and saying nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

True. I was just concerned when I saw the comments of a contributor whose help I need dismissed as "gobbledegook" and "nonsense". They are not. I would not have explained all that to anyone but you, who does deal with content disputes at DRN, where this may wind up if Jerome Frank Disciple's talk page mediation attempt is unsuccessful. Thanks for all you do. Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I will fully be able to understand the nuances of the colony/department distinction. I was basing the "colony" remark on the Arolsen Archives page (which is cited in the article) and says, "Djaafar Khemdoudi was born on November 12, 1917, in Aumale (today Sour El-Ghozlane) in Algeria, which was a French colony at the time." (Admittedly it could be using colony colloquially). I'm moving the content discussion back to the page's talk page and will try to get a resolution there.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

References

• This is why we shouldn't put people's ethnicities or nationalities in the lead sentence of their biographies. The article could start out "...was a resistance fighter during World War II", the birthplace could remain as is in the infobox, and every reader would come away from the article just as well informed about this individual, without all these indentation levels. Folly Mox (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

yep Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  The sourced content was made using a open sourced blog, that I myself thought was reliable, but which wasn't, after reviewing it and contradicts the book from Marc André.

  As I stated before, it would be best to put the two nationalities, which I proposed several times with conciliatory measures every time and consensual propositions, or to put neither of them. (Thus leaving a significant part of the memory issue void of sense)

  You can find the same points that I adressed here, in the talk page and that were repeated by Robert McClendon^[1] :During the French colonial rule, Algerians were considered indigenous French subjects – but with none of the rights that came with that name. They were in fact neither Algerian nor French for 130 years. (here though we speak about someone linked with anti-Algerian independence leaders, thus opposed to the independence of Algeria from France)

  For the COI, here it was about you, and it was not undisclosed, as I stated publicly that I was waiting for the sources in order to be added, and then I added them, using only Arolsen. However, you can see from every source by French Resistants, and even Bel Hadj El Maafi, that he was considered a French compatriot in every case where it was adressed.^[2][3] This was also confirmed in private correspondence by his son, even if I didn't put it in the WP article, since it was not a reliable source, I'll give you here a screen of his text with a translation, and thus match every source from the Resistance that I putted.^[4]

  Translation : For the record and only for you to know that some Jewish leaders in Lyon were not very keen to see a cell bearing the name of a person of Algerian origin…..and I would add that my father arrived in France in 1937 (i.e. at 20) has always been French without any hesitation. Then was very different from now and so was the nature of immigration.

  Then, you must understand that my proposals of saying that he was French andAlgerian are conciliatory measures, and that sources back only the fact that he identified himself as French. The Arolsen quote I putted was also a try to find a compromise. You didn't want that, for no good reason, and such, you enforced your view, but that won't change the facts. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It was not undisclosed, as I stated before that I was in link with the family in the talk page and in the report here (even if I took contact with them after starting to create the page, since I wanted to have sources + the picture). I already answered that the source was from a blog, that I myself put in, which was a mistake, and should be removed, I said it to you, and you insulted me in the talk page. The report was about your disruptive behavior, your POV-Pushing and your edit warring about anything that concerned Algeria, accusations that were already made against you multiple times in ANI reports over the years. The issue of the content is relevant, since it's a POV-Pushing regardless of reliable sources (such as Arolsen and official documents from the Resistance) that considered him French, which you removed as not being reliable multiple times. Thus, it's necessary to explain the issue to the readers, so they can see more clearly the problem with any of your actions.

Now, about the content you removed, it is also sourced here^{[1] (page 172)} : Many scholars, and many French people themselves, consider understandings of nationhood in France to be “assimilationist,” in contrast to more ethnically centered concepts of national belonging prevalent in other countries. As such, France is supposed to be relatively open to the political and social integration of immigrants and other outsiders, no matter what their ethnic or cultural origins, who choose to embrace French law, traditions, and culture. In this sense, France’s “ethnic system” is, technically, not based upon ethnicity at all.

Then, speaking about someone who lived in mainland France far 80% of his life, who adopted the customs and the laws of mainland France, who didn't have the Algerian nationality, who was in link with people opposed to the Algerian independence until they got shot by the FLN for that, who was designed as a "French compatriot" by every source speaking about him and who didn't live in Algeria from 1937 to his death in 2011, when he died, saying that he was Algerian only is POV-Pushing. What I made on the French WP page was that he was French with Algerian origins, and that didn't bother anyone, and didn't create any issues. You coming on the page, destroying +6000o of text and refusing to listen to any source, to any argument is the real issue, and is linked obviously with this report. Even the conciliatory measures I made were done to find a middle-ground, but even then, you refused them, without adding any new source, or nothing. You quoted the book from Kamel Mouellef to support your point, but then I showed you that nowhere in that book he was designed as being Algerian, and you still refused to listen. This shows clearly the issue of behaviour and why I asked you from being warned, since it's not the first time that you are flagged for that, that you are a WP:SPA about Algeria, and that you engage in agressive behaviour everytime that you are reported or challenged on that. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

once again, preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so you don't read my message and now engage in c/c. Wait for others to answer, as was already stated above. Also, I suggest that you read the first 10 words of my previous message, since they answer that already. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If that doesn't show the kind of behaviour we are facing here with M. Bitton, I don't know what will. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Your long walls of text that end up saying very little of substance come across as rants, and I garuntee that whatever you hope to achieve by coming to ANI will not happen because of that. Explain in CONCISE language (without any extraneous crap about the content dispute) what M.Bitton is doing wrong and what you want to happen. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

no interest whatsoever in what the OP has to say to me or about me, so once again, preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but two editors have now said you two should probably avoid commenting here for a bit and let other editors chip in.

Also, in general, I think each of you are making accusations and taking steps that aren't proportionate to the conduct of the other. In short, I think you're both failing to assume good faith. This should have been settled by a dispute-resolution process like WP:3O. I'm going to try to go to the talk page of the page in question and see if we can't come to a compromise in terms of article content.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Their initial report is a testimony of their bad assumption, so I see no reason whatsoever not to return the favour. I left a comment for others (as I'm supposed to and to avoid filing a report about them), so they should stop swamping it with their nonsense. Also, this is not about the content, it's about their undisclosed WP:COI and the fact that they resorted to changing sourced content with their WP:OR to peddle the POV of the family that they are in contact with. M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

While I would never endorse directly contacting family, I don't know that doing so presents a conflict-of-interest issue. Honestly, the mixture of a content dispute with a conduct dispute resulted in this entire thread being really overlong. Given that we've reached a compromise as to the content dispute, I would suggest all parties withdraw their complaints here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but now that I have been dragged to ANI for nothing and given the aspersions that they kept throwing around, I will insist on keeping it open until the admins had their say. The undisclosed COI issue, coupled with them insisting on peddling the family's POV (even at the expense of other wp policies), is a serious matter as far as I'm concerned. If they were new, I would overlook this, but the above wiki jargon that they want to use against me is a testimony to their knowledge of how wp works (one doesn't know WP:IDHT, POV pushing, SPA, etc. without knowing WP:COI), so there really no excuse for them not disclosing the COI (what they now claim about it is unprovable and irrelevant as we have no way of knowing what went on between the two, who contacted whom and for what purpose; but the fact that they haven't disclosed it just that, a fact). M.Bitton (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. As a disclaimer, I myself have clashed before on M. Bitton's views of nationality, but I really don't think that what AgisdeSparte is asking for here is that unreasonable. Why not call someone in such a situation French-Algerian? It's surely true they could be called any of Algerian, French, or French-Algerian, and all of them are technically true from the right angle. Just use the most expansive version. I think the example of British loyalists in colonial America is a good one - especially if they move out of the newly independent USA, it seems reasonable to call them British or British-Americans or something. SnowFire (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  1) You're making it look at though that's what they asked for, it's not. What they did is replace sourced content with He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family, which is nothing more than a misrepresentation of a source to push a POV (the Arolsen Archives says no such thing. In fact, it describes him as Algerian). 2) We have a set of policies that have been agreed upon by the community, so we either expect everyone to respect them or we change them if they are no longer fit for purpose. What we don't do, is apply their strict version to newcomers and let the experienced editors break them at will. 3) There is also the issue of the external relationship between the OP and the family whose POV they have been peddling. M.Bitton (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• The source misrepresentation hasn't stopped. AgisdeSparte has just added this sentence to the article (described as a fact in their edit summary): first of all, that's not a reliable source (some random image that could have been Photoshopped for all we know). Second, it says no such thing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  1. You already made some similar claims about the picture of Bel Hadj El Maafi, which was quoted by Marc André, an historian, as being a true source, and then you moved to tag it as unreliable even if it was shown that it was reliable. Stop being hypercritical, primary sources can be used if they are used to report straightforward facts.^[1]

  2. It says no such thing ? "le pillage complet de son commerce"

  3. You continued your biased modifications on that page, for example you tried to remove the category before seing that you were wrong, self reverting, and tagging every primary source as unreliable, even those who were interpreted and reported by historians as being reliable.

  4. About the Arolsen source, as was stated before numerous times, without you understanding, it seems, it was to find a conciliatory mesure. Yourself admitted in the talk page that he was French but claimed that he became so after the war (without any RS), and so it shouldn't be used on his biography. Also, what you call a reliable source is a quote from an open-source blog that I myself added when I created the page, before seing that it was wrong.

  
  

  As always on this page, you only engage in disruptive behaviour, without even adding one line to the content of the page, that's why I asked that you be removed from it, at least, and to receive a warn. AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I want to state for the record that I answer only because he is accusing me, even if we were both told to let other contributors speak alone and do their appreciation. So far, when another Wikipedian took the floor to speak, be it @Jerome Frank Disciple, @Robert McClenon or @SnowFire, all supporting a consensus that more or less was agreing, because this discussion is ridiculous (and I proposed this kind of settlement numerous times - even before reporting him), he responded by attacking me and trying to conceal the forming consensus that went against his WP:SPA views behind virulent attacks.

  
  

  That's why I asked for his removal from the page, because I think it's clear we can't count on M. Bitton to engage in constructive behaviour about it. AgisdeSparte (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Deliberately ignoring the above garbage, as I have no time for people who misrepresent the sources to push a POV (see previous comment) and lie to boot (diffs already provided).

Here's the so-called "source" to which they attributed During his arrest, his business in Lyon was looted by local residents.

1. The image that AgisdeSparte uploaded to commons is obviously not a reliable source (they or the family that they claim are in contact with could have Photoshopped it).
2. There is nothing in that image (I repeat, it's not RS) that would support what AgisdeSparte added to the article (this is another clear-cut source misrepresentation).
3. The only editor who should refrain from editing the article is AgisdeSparte, for they admitted being in contact with the family whose POV they have been peddling (at the expense of our policies). While we have no idea whether what they are claiming is true, and if true, who contacted whom, for what purpose and who ended influencing whom; we know for a fact that the external relationship has been admitted to and as such, our WP:COI should apply. M.Bitton (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The use of this source is indeed an issue. The linked citation, which still stands as-is in the article, does not say le pillage complet de son commerce nor does it say anything remotely resembling it or its topic. It would also be a primary source and not usable in this way even if it did, but that's less grievous (but still relevant). AgisdeSparte, do you have an explanation for why you have added During his arrest, his business in Lyon was looted by local residents with a citation comprising a link to this document? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Yae4

• Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yae4 is currently involved in a conflict with me and a few other editors over Libreboot. Instead of accepting their opinions do not hold consensus, they are now increasingly resorting to disrupting the normal editing process by:

• Repeatedly tagging an opponent as a WP:SPA: Special:Diff/1160298043, Special:Diff/1160302499, Special:Diff/1160303915, Special:Diff/1160387206
• Opening a frivolous sockpuppet investigation against everyone who disagreed with them on Talk:Libreboot: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libreleah
• Collapsing active talk page discussions where consensus is heading against them: Special:Diff/1160565668
• Reopening a recent AfD in connection with the content dispute: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libreboot (2nd nomination)
• Making a plainly unfounded accusation of edit warring following a WP:BOLD edit they didn't like: Special:Diff/1160724278, Special:Diff/1160724386

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should start declaring Libreboot a contentious topic by now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, to start with an easy decision: Your "3RR" (edit warring) accusation in [60] is absurd; the cited part of the policy against edit warring is meant to prevent exactly your type of argumentation. Making multiple edits, no matter how much text they delete, consecutively, is one single revert that could have been done in one single edit without changing the result. Maddy from Celeste has never edited the article before, so they can at maximum be at "1 revert" objectively and without this being subject to discussion. As a first step, I'd like you to acknowledge that your accusation was incorrect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

By the way, look at this page too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open-source_firmware

This is more evidence of Yae4's non-neutral editing. He repeatedly insisted that libreboot.at be present on the Open-source firmware page, and other editors disagreed, saying that there should just be 1 link to the main libreboot article. This, also despite the fact that there was no grounds under wikipedia sourcing rules for doing so (the article is not specifically about Libreboot, instead it is an aggregate of links to other Wikipedia articles pertaining to the subject of the article in question).

PhotographyEdits recently changed it back to only linking the Libreboot article, but the difference now is that Yae4 is under investigation and thus under more scrutiny. Yae4 responded by subjecting that article to AfD, without proper justification (EDIT: initially wrote "with", meant to write "without"). Accordingly, almost every editor on that page has voted Keep in the AfD.

Correlation does not equal causation, but other people in *this* ANI page have noted the same pattern, whereby Yae4 responds on a personalised and even vindictive basis when he doesn't get what he wants. (while using specious arguments and tactics seemingly to drive away "competing" editors).

I was advised by ToBeFree not to submit to this ANI unless I have something useful to contribute to the discussion. Indeed, I believe the above contribution may shed some light on the matter. Libreleah (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, that same Open-source firmware page was created by PhotographEdits, who Yae4 has frequently warred with on the Libreboot article. Again, correlation not causation, but look at the pattern. Yae4 seemingly has "enemies" and uses such crude methods against them. The speed at which Yae4 operates, and the general tactics used, seem to suggest an intent to intimidate other editors, though in a way that would not be so obvious to admins without sufficient context given, as has been provided by the contributors to this ANI. Libreleah (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Username Yae4 engaging in persistent disruptive editing of the Libreboot article –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I had that in mind when I wrote "contentious topic", but I didn't link it because the wall of text there mostly distracts from the concise, clear list provided by Maddy from Celeste above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, after that, this looks like forum shopping.

I was preparing some suggestions for Talk:Amateur radio. That literally has been disrupted by this.

Words above like "conflict" and "opponent" succinctly illustrate the complainer's attitude and behavior.

@ToBeFree: WP:3RR is to discourage a lot of quick or frequent back/forth changes, and encourage editors to resolve differences and reach "consensus" before making major or controversial changes to an article. Over about two weeks, from 24 May 2023 (6,530 bytes) to 8 June 2023 (14,339 bytes), I spent a lot of time methodically expanding summaries of citations, most of which had been cited in the article previously, but deleted, as PhotographyEdits maintained the article as a stub billboard WP:SPAMPAGE, i.e. "Advertisements masquerading as articles", as it was for years. In one quick swoop, the complainer, appearing as a proxy for Libreleah, undid most (~50%) of those numerous expansions and rewrote the article to a preferred, biased version. That sure feels like a bunch of undoing another editor's many changes quickly. If you want to say technically that was only one revert, OK fine. My revert of all those changes was only one too (I was concerned about that), but the warning was sincere. If you'd also observed how many times the complainer has quickly undone other trivial things like collapses of ridiculously long walls of Talk text, and accurate SPA tags, you should understand why a warning seemed appropriate. It was a warning and revert, not ANEW. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Why the sudden rush to this article, after a few previous RfCs and failed attempts to stimulate methodical discussions? This is a pattern in some barely or not-really-notable articles. A small business owner, in this case Libreleah, fears their income will be reduced, or their reputation diminished, or something, and gets associates to rush to "their" article. What happens next is the WP:MEAT puppets who have gathered to support Libreleah and Libreleah's biased WP:SPAMPAGE, will each say they support the complainer's changes, or take turns reverting.

My edits at Libreboot: Nemo_bis said

"recent edits by Yae4] are prima facie an improvement in terms of sourcing. Given there are some ongoing developments, it makes sense to have sections focused on the past tense, as we don't necessarily have good sources for the events of the past few months. When more and better sources appear, we'll hopefully be able to describe Libreboot's connection to GNU/FSF, mention any relevant forks etc. We don't need to decide that now..."

That gives me a little too much credit, because I retrieved and summarized deleted sources from previous article history.

SPI of "everyone who disagreed": False. User DFlhb, who said "Wait, Maddy, you're not an admin yet?", was not on the list, but probably should be for WP:MEAT. User:Cruzdoze, another SPA that participated in an RFC at Talk:Libreboot and disagreed with me was not on the list. It does look a lot like User Libreleah, however. SPA Edidds (mild disagreement at AfD) is not on the list.

SPI and WP:MEAT: If there is a better place to take WP:MEAT issues than SPI, let me know. On 24 May 2023, I did a talk page RfC; there was minimal involvement (included SPA Cruzdoze). On 26 May 2023, PhotographyEdits did a talk page RfC; There were a couple new commenters. On 28 May 2023, I started a Talk page "AfD or Merge" discussion. Minimal involvement other than (significantly) Nemo_bis, and a self-declared connected user Arzg, and an IP that writes similar to User Libreleah. Libreleah user page self-describes as a "passionate nut". 92.40.218.255 said "I think Leah's nuts...", sound similar? 9 June, the article gets attacked by a couple SPA or Socks, and IPs get blocked... 15 June Libreleah account re-activates. The complainer becomes involved by reverting a SPA tag: "this does not appear conductive to a constructive discussion". Same day User Rlink2 becomes involved. Next day User DFlhb becomes involved (after discouraging a related RfC at RSN on 13 June). Random coincidence? Doubtful.

SPA tags were accurate, and the complainer reverted all or nearly all, falsely claiming Pointy or other excuses. The WP:SPA tag informs readers like admins of the facts of the account's activity up to that time - few or no edits outside the topic. User Libreleah account's first edit in 5 years, or ~8th edit since account creation, was a 22 000 byte treatise criticizing me and my expansion and changes of Libreboot. At my last look, User Libreleah had 33 edits at Talk:Libreboot, more than anywhere else, three times as many as the 11 edits at the #2 article.[61]

Apologies for length. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, I'm currently not worried about "the complainer's attitude and behavior"; please don't use it as a tu-quoque-style argument.

You spent over 200 words on something that boils down to "okay, technically, fine". Not technically, though: People are encouraged to be bold; they don't need an edit warring warning and far-fetched references to the three-revert rule when being bold. It is also inappropriate to personalize the dispute with accusations of meatpuppetry-like behavior ("proxy for Libreleah", "WP:MEAT puppets") at minimum when referring to Maddy from Celeste's type of edits. You're casting aspersions in a discussion about your behavior.

Where did you take "small business owner" and "income" from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I will try to "explicitly refute the central point" of who began disruption, at Talk:Libreboot: The complainer here, and user Libreleah are primarily responsible for disruption and aggression at Talk:Libreboot.

Complainer first edit at Talk:Libreboot: reverted a valid SPA tag with comment "this does not appear conductive to a constructive discussion". User Libreleah had few edits outside Talk:Libreboot at that time.

Complainer 2nd and 3rd edits were aggressive and inaccurate regarding my efforts at the article and its talk, saying "Alright, @Yae4 and Libreleah: cut this bullshit." and "And Yae4, disrupting this discussion isn't going to help. Both of you need to stop casting aspersions at each other. Attacking each other like this is not going to help you. Wikipedia articles are built using consensus, not by whoever can throw the most shit at the others." With this introduction, who wants to read the rest of the "advice"?

Complainer Next edit at AN: "I'll translate: There are two versions of the libreboot software project, and three editors are at each other's throats fighting over which one gets to be the legitimate one. I've told them to stop it and given some advice on the content dispute..." Mis-characterization, vague, insulting, demanding; see next.

There were seven, recent, open or unanswered discussions at the time Libreleah posted a 22 000 byte, out of place, disruptive "Persistent vandalism, or otherwise disruptive, non-neutral editing with clear conflict of interest for those involved": "AfD or Merge?", (scroll down from there) "LWN.net", "Libreboot.AT, again", "Name of the project", "Discussion of FossForce.com as a source", "ItsFoss, TuxMachines, and FSF and GNU as sources", and "Official Links". While there was disagreement, it was nothing like what followed. IMO, a non-disruptive editor would give opinions on open, un-resolved discussions, not be demanding and try to take over and control (disorganized, rambling) discussions, starting with their own aspersions casting (see above).

@ToBeFree:

I thought I saw a warning along the lines of: when someone brings a complaint like this, they should expect their own behavior to be scrutinized.

> Where did you take "small business owner" and "income" from?

Account Libreleah is the first connected user listed at Talk:Libreboot (pre-dating my involvement). The "declared" link goes to where user Libreleah said "Hi. I'm Leah Rowe of the libreboot project. Wikipedia article "libreboot""... "I need you to unlock the libreboot article, and/or allow me (user account libreleah) to edit the libreboot article, so that I can change the author name back to Leah Rowe." More recently, at Talk:Libreboot user Rlink2 asked for proof "that you are Leah Rowe", and user Libreleah responded "Yes, I certainly can prove it..." followed by a claim of proof. Based on bits and pieces in cited, previously cited, or potential sources, Rowe operated a series of non-notable small companies, websites and brands selling computer hardware with Rowe's versions of Libreboot included, and argues aggressively to maintain a link from the article to Rowe's version of Libreboot, which links to Rowe's company for sales. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so Libreleah seems to have a financial conflict of interest. I don't think that has been properly disclosed yet; the connection from non-financial to financial seems to be unacknowledged at least on their user page so far. This can be remedied. And while this is no direct payment for editing, WP:COITALK does pretty much apply: "No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them."

It's also clear that describing others' actions as "bullshit" is inappropriate.

Both said, my primary concern in this discussion here is still your behavior, Yae4, and your accusations towards others distract from a few issues you haven't properly addressed yet. For example, you have described DFlhb and Maddy from Celeste in ways that imply or even directly accuse them of meatpuppetry. These two are experienced users with thousands of contributions. Describing them as meatpuppets just because they agree with each other on an issue is inappropriate; you accuse them of misbehavior without proper evidence of misbehavior. Your proven-wrong accusation of edit warring (or a 3RR violation even) towards Maddy from Celeste brought us here in the first place.

Yae4, I think the issue can be summarized as "unnecessary personalization of content disputes", and it has been demonstrated in this discussion here by your own messages already. I agree that you should be blocked to prevent this from continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As outlined with dates above, and seen in Talk:Libreboot history, near simultaneous arrival of a group of supporters of user Libreleah, shortly after the 22 000 treatise, is unlikely to be random coincidence. User DFlhb explicitly discouraged RfC at WP:RSN, and this subsequent exchange at DFlhb user Talk looks like recruiting or canvassing for support by PhotographyEdits. Looks like it worked. I can only show the pattern; I can't make you see it. With all due respect, it's obvious what's happening here. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

When told to stop making baseless aspersions, it's a good idea to stop, not double down. DFlhb (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

My initial post on Talk:Libreboot represents my first reaction at the whole situation there. With hindsight, I do agree a more civil choice of words couldn't have hurt. As for Libreleah, I considered bringing her editing up here, but it seems to be explained by her being not yet being familiar with how we raise concerns over content here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree

so Libreleah seems to have a financial conflict of interest. She isn't paid to edit Wikipedia. She owns an open source project, which would mean WP:COI applies and not the paid version. Rlink2 (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Rlink2, a financial conflict of interest does not necessarily imply compensation for editing itself. You have a financial conflict of interest, for example, if you completely voluntarily and anonymously, without any hope of ever getting rewarded for this, clean up your employer's Wikipedia article from what you perceive as libel. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree, hi: I said I wouldn't engage here, but I only came to say this one thing: yes, I declared my conflict of interest for libreboot.org and thought that was enough; it did not occur to me to also mention financial interests. I assure you this is not an intentional "deception" on my part, and I've now written about it in full on my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Libreleah

That said, I'm not the only person who has complained about Yae4's behaviour. Many other people editing the Libreboot article, and indeed other articles in the past, have complained in the exact same ways.

One thing people need to know about me is that I do actually try to be neutral about my own work. Most businesses have a sort of monopoly-like pride about their business, but my business model literally is giving away source code and knowledge for free to the public; I've actually helped my commercial competitors many times, for example, helping them fix bugs, because besides getting paid I also care about the quality of the software I release. When I first started Libreboot I didn't even have a viable company at the time; people noticed what I was doing and it just sort of accidentally happened from there.

I digress. None of this is relevant to Wikipedia policy. I apologise for the lack of foresight on my part. I hope the changes I've made to my user page are enough and if you have any feedback on it, I'll happily take it. Libreleah (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

People sometimes think I'm naive because of that, but it's never steered me wrong. Some of my commercial competitors are even listed as contributors to Libreboot, on the Libreboot website. I support freedom, that's why I do free software. If I didn't have Libreboot I'd just do something else. Libreleah (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree, there is one more fact that I feel is important to mention: the editors on the Libreboot article (and the talk page) are all intimately familiar with who I am, and about my company; both are, or have been, written about prominently on the Libreboot article.

This is also evident in what they've written about, both on the article and the talk page, indicating that they knew my connection. So I don't think the discussion may have been skewed or perverted in any way. The updated entry on my own user page just removes any such possibility in the future.

Once again, I apologise for this oversight on my part. That's why I never mentioned it so explicitly before, because I knew that everyone there knows who I am. (I *did* mention my connection specifically to libreboot.org, in the talk page, from the very moment I first posted there recently) Libreleah (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Libreleah is working in good faith here. One of the issue heres that Yae4 will take words and policies out of context to support his viewpoint. Rlink2 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Libreleah, thank you very much. The additional disclosure now made in [62] looks very well done to me; it clearly describes that there is a financial conflict of interest, and even explains where it comes from. This resolves my concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry again. Although I did register my account in 2016, I only used it briefly back then. I'm still learning the ropes. If you spot anything else that I need to sort out, please don't hesitate to let know. Thanks! Libreleah (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Sure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone who thought that making software free would make everyone nice and friendly and cuddly will be seriously disillusioned by this discussion. Can't you people (and that is directed at everyone involved) just thrash things out on the talk page like we do for articles where there is real disagreement, such as those on Middle Eastern politics? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't about disagreeing but about "disruptive editing" by User:Yae4. Having undergone a similar experience with said user/editor on the Elive page. Clearly this editor's modus operandi is one-sided edits, repeated deletions/undos and threats of blocking when meeting any resistance. Accompanying disdainful and condescending comments clearly aren't very helpful if it were about setting errors straight. On the contrary, this kind of behavior will scare almost every aspiring editor/submitter away from Wikipedia which I presume isn't what WP is about in the first place. Triantares (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Replying to myself as I noticed I wasn't as explicit as others posters here about the unsavory behaviour @Yae4 has.

  In short the Elive page has been edited, undone and revised so often by said editor that there are only 2 sentences left of the original text. Every positive review has been consistently removed or in one case, cherry picked to show only, out of context notes of criticism or replaced by quotes from critical reviews that are either extremely outdated or almost impossible to find in any other way than the direct link provided there. Any edits of mine to try and restore some sort of balance there were immediately undone and accompanied by threats. Just going through the history there is cringe-worthy in itself.

  In relation to "condescending and disdainful" I preferred asking @Yae4 on his talk page to stop these actions (opposed to starting an ANI) and quoted some of his previous remarks in that sense. The bland denial as answer to the plea (and the quotes) says it all. Triantares (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support block for neon-bright WP:CIR and incivility, which is persistent and worsening.

• These aspersions and sockpuppet/COI accusations against opponents aren't new. Warned by El_C in Jan 2020 (then did it again) and by Mr. Stradivarius in Sept 2020. It continued: diff diff diff diff diff diff diff.
• Also not the first frivolous SPI against opponents: 2020 (result: "Unrelated"), 2022 ("Ostensibly unrelated").
• Edit wars at Libreboot to add an FSF press release, diff diff diff. Blocked for edit warring to add primary-sourced WP:OR about GrapheneOS licensing, diff diff diff diff, blocked, then resumes days after the block expires, diff diff. Edit wars to misuse a secondary source: diff diff diff diff diff diff diff (later consensus to remove). Edit wars to add primary-sourced info about Libreboot.at: diff diff diff diff diff. Edit wars to add coatrack, diff diff diff diff (against 3rd opinion, diff).
• WP:CIR, aptly-described back in April 2020 (which led to a climate change TBAN, but only shifted the disruption to FOSS articles).
  • After Yae4's failed edit war to add 'negative' WP:OR to GrapheneOS, they decided to add comically POINTy in-text attribution (diff diff), remove various secondary sources because they parrot Twitter (diff diff diff diff diff), misuse sources (section), add negative BLP info sourced to junk sources (diff), and act phenomenally pointy about citing the official site (diff).
  • For products Yae4 likes, we see the opposite: user-generated content is reliable, and a forum has editorial oversight (section), dozens of primary sources are not actually primary (diff diff), an FSF press release email is due (RSN discussion), reddit, "alternativeto.net" and user forums are fine and dandy (diff diff), and unlike at GrapheneOS or Libreboot, the official site is fine (diff diff).
  • This diff is representative of the overall quality of Yae4's edits. Yae4 misunderstands sourcing, as others noticed time and again. Doesn't understand COI (as Mr. Stradivarus said), or MEAT (which they accuse me of for being nice to Maddy), or 3RR, or NPA. The bludgeoning walls of text you're seeing above should surprise no one, since El_C already noted it in August 2022 (WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT [...] I found them to have been exhausting to deal with). Yae4 drove away two editors just this past week, diff diff.

DFlhb (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I only checked the last statement. It is questionable at best.

> Yae4 drove away two editors just this past week, diff diff.

This is un-justified hypothesis. User Arzg was irritated because "the edit warring and namecalling and someone pinged me on my talk page?! are testing my patience." (not me) and was irritated by 92.40.218.255's preceding insults and diatribe (similar to user Libreleah, IMO). Also said, "I have a COI, having been involved with the project briefly in 2017". Maproom could equally well have been satisfied with the discussion and not particularly interested. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: Yes, it is a struggle to follow Wiki-rules. They are convoluted, or "nuanced". The presentation of diffs above is misleading and biased, but that won't matter, because you can get away with anything, if no one looks too deep, and they usually don't.

> only shifted the disruption to FOSS articles

No. My first edits in August 2019, at /e/_(operating_system) - another contentious "FOSS article" because of similar issues as here - led me to write on my user page

Tries to be neutral, but dislikes advertising and popularity contests driving Wikipedia. Will support deleting advertising, and adding criticism. The truth shall make you free.

> sockpuppet/COI accusations against opponents [your word, not mine] aren't new.

Partly true, but you conspicuously did not list the first one in 2019 when two sockpuppets were blocked. It's at the top of my Hall of Fame list; how could you miss it? Yes, meat and sock puppetry, and biased editing, and flocking together to a friend's or hero's article, is common in barely or not-really-notable articles, like this one, and that causes disruption. I accept responsibility for getting involved. I've primarily focused on article content, asked for outside help with RfCs, and only secondarily, asked for help dealing with the group with common cause(s) at the article, who targeted me here. "Patience is a virtue" you said. Between the lines, unstated, we'll get that editor. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Almost a year ago (June 2022), I blocked Yae4 for 3RR on a different open source software article, GrapheneOS. I remember it having been especially challenging to deal with them at the time and not for the first time (AN3 archive). I just looked up their complaint against me in that AN3 report, which seems centred on my warning to them against noticeboard and user talk tag misuse two years earlier (User talk:Yae4#Harassment template on JzG's talk page). As I said back then (Jan 2020): these are more than just procedural mistakes — they are mistakes that are rooted in an overly-aggressive approach to dispute resolution. It's disappointing to see that not much has changed, with WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLUDGEON remaining a problem. El_C 21:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry to see bad feelings persist. Since you mentioned GrapheneOS, would you have an opinion on whether Louis Rossmann's video [63] that prompted Daniel Micay to "step down" should be excepted from WP:RSPYT and allowed under WP:YouTube to be summarized? -- Yae4 (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not have "bad feelings," I have an articulated critique. Nor do I have an opinion on the content (though I do like Rossmann). But I do have an opinion about you deflecting from what is actually being discussed—your repeated misconduct as raised by multiple persons. And that opinion, I'm sorry to say, is not great. El_C 10:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to be here, partly because of still mis-understanding 3RR; the previous block was a simple, careless mistake of mine, and I accept responsibility. Climate change is a whole other story; I learned that lesson and have avoided the topic after being un-banned. People who flocked together to support their friend's or hero's version of an article, and here, is a different thing, but thanks for your articulated critique. Not to deflect again, but I'd appreciate an answer to this question on 3RR. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(sent in [64]) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I have more evidence against Yae4, that I believe should be considered. To set the scene, I'll again clarify the nature of the dispute that took place on Libreboot: there was a dispute over sourcing, and Yae4 seemingly wanted to remove all mention of the established domain name libreboot.org in favour of libreboot.at; it is established that the .at domain name is owned by FSF (Free Software Foundation), and was announced by the FSF in March 2023 over a dispute with the original project over ideological issues. As of late, editors at Libreboot have agreed via RfC to only talk about libreboot.org, since that's what all the strongest sources for it talk about and they pre-date libreboot.at's existence (as per wayback machine).

I've accused Yae4 of being biased in favour of libreboot.at, but I now believe he may in fact have a Conflict of Interest; I believe Yae4 is actually working on behalf of the FSF, without having disclosed such fact.

My evidence is thus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4/Hundred_Rabbits&oldid=1161284056 - draft article by Yae4. Hundred Rabbits isn't well-known, but put into context: Hundred Rabbits was the keynote speaker at FSF's "LibrePlanet" conference of 2022. This on its own doesn't mean anything, but consider Yae4's aggressive editing in favour of libreboot.at on Libreboot, edits that have now been largely removed per editor consensus

Now, more items:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159761316 - on its own, a trivial change, just adding info to the FSF page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1158799817 - more FSF edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159762149 - again

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159761316 - ditto

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FSF_Free_Software_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1158988792 - pertaining to FSF Free Software Awards which are held at LibrePlanet conference.

LibrePlanet is a relatively obscure conference. It only has a couple hundred people who view it and doesn't really reach much news online, very much an internal FSF thing that members get involved in. FSF relies a lot upon intern/volunteer labour, and, well:

Yae4 has been editing the Libreboot article since about 26 May 2023, almost a month now, and has warred with multiple people (his actions qualify as edit warring, he was constantly reverting people's changes often without giving any reason).

Even if Yae4 isn't in league with the FSF, these diffs show a pattern of preference towards the FSF, and thus it could be argued that Yae4 had bias (non-neutral point of view) while editing the Libreboot article.

Yae4 has also made numerous edits on articles like GNU Taler and GNU LibreJS, all positive edits. Libreleah (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

(GNU is closely associated with the FSF, who provides hosting infrastructure and funding for it) Libreleah (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is the talk that Hundred Rabbits gave at LibrePlanet 2022, hosted by the FSF: https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/software-doldrums/ Libreleah (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

one part i forgot to mention earlier, look at this diff from Yae4: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALibreboot&diff=1161276868&oldid=1161273531 - regardless of the merit behind the argument (merit rejected by other editors on that talk page, per consensus agreement:

pay attention: Yae4 refers to "distroboot". distroboot.org was only online for about *2 hours*, and not widely publicized, I mainly only mentioned it on Libreboot IRC (private chat room); i used another name instead (osboot) that same day, and it stuck for a while

this, combined with the recent crusade by Yae4 against Libreboot, suggests that Yae4 is definitely someone inclined to watch closely what the Libreboot project gets up to, far closer than most people would inspect it; it could suggest that Yae had a vendetta on behalf of the FSF. I think Yae4 works for the FSF. Libreleah (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

yet more evidence that Yae4 is working for the FSF and/or libreboot.at directly, diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157433496 <-- yae4 makes reference to links that are *not public* - how would Yae4 know about these, unless he was intimately involved with the project? I sense that Yae4 likely had an undisclosed conflict of interest the entire time while working on the Libreboot article Libreleah (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Last comment by Yae4 (hopefully) Mostly @DFlhb: It's not about "products Yae4 likes" or not. I don't like, dislike or use Invidious software, but I am constructively participating in its AfD, where I also appropriately tagged another SPA without any knee-jerk objections, or summary rejection of my suggestion on WP:IAR. I usually enjoy finding sources and expanding articles that were barely or not-really-wiki-notable when I first saw them; lists are at my user page. I am proud of legitimately helping save several articles from deletion. I respect and follow constructive, impartial suggestions like AtD or sourcing or whatever. I respect consensus process, when legitimate. I do not respect, and will object and ask for help against illegitimate consensus (of friends or hero's), as at Talk:Libreboot. I don't care or take it personally that DFlhb took CalyxOS to AfD then withdrew it. I'm not going to collect a misleading dossier with other mistakes DFlhb may have made. I would ask ToBeFree if consideration was given to whether all that by DFlhb is also "unnecessary personalization of content disputes" or too much attention to another editor's activities? I don't know where the wiki-line is between building a case and stalking, but it feels like DFlhb has some kind of grudge against me. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm primarily surprised by the amount of words used to sugar-coat "DFlhb seems to be stalking me". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Throw enough shit at the wall, see what sticks? DFlhb (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Collapsing my response to more aspersions by Yae4 DFlhb (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll address the older one first. You repeatedly accused me, Maddy, Rlink and PE of meatpuppeting and being canvassed to Libreboot around June 16. My Wikipedia email was disabled during that period and two admins had to PM me on WPO instead (no one here did). I first saw Libreboot in the WP:COMPUTING article alerts on May 31, after your AfD. I saw it again on June 13, after your RSN RfC notification on the COMPUTING talk page, as I said at the time. By June 16, the article had been on my watchlist for two weeks, but I had avoided it because I saw you were involved. CalyxOS: In April, you started two RfCs at RSN. In one, I disagreed on procedure. In another, you argued a source used at CalyxOS and GrapheneOS was unreliable, and I agreed. I followed your link to CalyxOS, thought the other sources were also insufficient, did WP:BEFORE, and nommed it. Out of nowhere, you accused me of a COI towards GrapheneOS because I had disagreed with you back in December, in a GrapheneOS RfC in which everyone else had also disagreed with you, including smart peeps like Kvng and Rhododendrites. At that point, I didn't know there was any beef. To my knowledge, we'd only interacted twice before April: once in that December RfC, which I saw in the WP:COMPUTING article alerts. And later in January, we disagreed about reliability in an RfC about 9to5Google at WP:RSN, where you said 9to5Google was misused at GrapheneOS. I agreed on one citation; also corrected one misattribution; you took issue with that last edit summary, and I clarified I had no issues with you. Before the AfD, normal disagreements, nothing personal. After your aspersion, I could tell you didn't like me, and I stayed out of your way. At the AfD, I thanked you (twice) for finding sources, earnestly invited you to check out the Wikipedia Library since you'd said you couldn't access a book, and then withdrew the CalyxOS AfD early. At F-Droid, you reverted a tag I'd added (didn't know you edited there; I got there from CalyxOS), and I politely dipped out and let your revert stand. Despite seeing Libreboot on May 31, I stayed away. Our only interaction between your April 13 aspersion, and June 16 at Libreboot, were two unfailingly polite comments at RSN on June 14, diff diff, where I deliberately avoided a back-and-forth. None of this is about a "grudge". Notice how I did nothing when it was against me, and only intervened when you kept doing it to others? I'm quite easy-going. DFlhb (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the Library suggestion. It didn't work for me. I don't remember why. Probably my error. I understand some people like getting thanked, so I hit the Thank button now and then. I do not care about being thanked. I care about article content. Thank you for when when we've interacted productively.

A central point, again: 14 June: PhotographyEdits says "Thanks for your comment on WP:RSN. I was getting a bit annoyed by everthing." DFlhb says "Patience is always a virtue. I'm also not familiar with that particular dispute." and then becomes involved. Looks like recruiting to Libreboot.

> I didn't know there was any beef.

> I could tell you didn't like me, and I stayed out of your way.

> Despite seeing Libreboot on May 31, I stayed away.

A 2nd central point: ^This is "unnecessary personalization of content disputes".^

I do not like, dislike or feel anything about DFlhb. We've agreed. We've disagreed. You've misled in your presentations above, but I understand you're making a case, and are not being neutral or objective. I'm sorry you felt personally offended when I said your earlier positions looked biased to me; nothing personal was intended then. Nothing personal is intended now. It looks like you and a few other Libreleah supporters converged on Talk:Libreboot, to support cutting the article in half to a billboard again, while ignoring WP:RS, "WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP issues" in the process. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, may I try to reassure you re "Libreleah supporters", meatpuppets, socks and whatever? WP:RSN is one of our highest-profile boards, and by opening an RFC there (which unlike merely raising a query there, caused a bot to alert opted-in editors) and by notifying about 14 article talk pages and 2 projects about that, you inevitably attracted attention not only to that discussion but also to the article you identified as at issue. It is common, even desirable, that in such situations editors will look at the article disputes and consider whether they can help resolve any of them, possibly engaging there on other aspects rather than at RSN on your particular question. They may turn out to agree with you or someone else in some ways; this does not mean that they arrive as supporters or puppets, or that anyone but yourself is responsible for drawing them to it at that time. WP:AN is even higher-profile and editors reading it will often look at the article(s) concerned and even do more to resolve matters there than they could at WP:AN. The timing of their arrival doesn't indicate that they are doing so in bad faith; please don't worry about that and indeed, please don't keep making such accusations. NebY (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I get it, but it's not just timing. What would you think when 3 newly involved, relatively experienced editors all support, in essence: ignore reliability of sources, defend a financially connected editor who has few or no edits outside this topic, let them be heavily involved in discussing what the article should say, and include (biased) BLP info citing one of the most questionable sources. Then, let's go see if we can crucify that one editor who won't go along with all this? -- Yae4 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with those characterisations, which I would fear to be the product of seeing editors as a malicious gang and thus of circular reasoning, I would not deduce a conspiracy from them. The guidance in WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:DROPTHESTICK can save us from ourselves (and if we have enemies, from them too). NebY (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@NebY: Good advice. I remind myself of AGF and not-a-battlefield fairly often. I should remember DropTheStick more. Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Curious that repeated personal attacks over mere disagreements are "nothing personal", yet leaving you alone to avoid these personal attacks is "unnecessary personalization". DFlhb (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Break

One more thing I don't know if DFlhb used: 12-13 June: At Helpdesk I sought uninvolved advice on resolving differences. It's long, but about article issues, not editor(s). Feedback included "your discussion is already in the correct place, the Talk Page" and "I tend to go for the Project route unless there is some real drama and lack of WP:AGF evident in the discussion, which doesn't seem to be the case here." I went about posting neutral RfC notices... Crux: Libreleah started some real drama. This caused the disruption. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I simply raised objection to the disruptive nature of your editing, whereby you demonstrate a clear pattern of disregard for other editors; I regard you as a bully. Such has been corroborated by numerous other people here, and elsewhere, over many years. Detailed analysis of your history reveals a clear tendency on your part to harass and intimidate other Wikipedians, to reduce any challenge to yourself; this too has been articulated by other editors on Wikipedia.

No, what you call "drama" is simply accountability. You are being held accountable for your misdeeds. If I didn't challenge you, someone else would have done so at a later date. It's simply that you stepped on too many people's toes, over the years, and it's finally catching up with you. Sooner or later, the chickens always come home to roost.

I think you deserve to be banned from Wikipedia, but I'll leave that up to the admins. Libreleah (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not up to admins to ban, in the sense that WP:BAN ≠ WP:BLOCK. A topic ban (WP:TBAN) is a restriction from a specific topic area, but the user remains unblocked. Since this topic area is not formally a contentious one (WP:CTOP), a single admin does not have the authority to impose a TBAN singlehandedly. It requires a separate proposal, like in a subsection of this thread, usually open for a minimum of 24 hours until a WP:CLOSE by an admin on whether there is WP:CONSENSUS or lack thereof among participants. And it likewise can only be rescinded by an WP:UNBAN appeal to the community. A community ban (WP:CBAN) is decided and appealed similarly (though open for 72 hours instead of 24), but by contrast, it is a site ban, that includes an indefinite block from the entire website. This is contra a regular indef block that any admin may apply, but also any admin might in turn undo following an WP:UNBLOCK request. There is also an article ban (WP:ABAN), but it is used seldom since the advent of the partial block (WP:PBLOCK), since the latter allows up to ten pages to be technically restricted (unlike ABAN and TBAN which are adhered to on faith), and which any admin may impose as a regular block (block-lite, even). But, either way, I don't think either ABAN or PBLOCK would be that useful here, so as an aside.

So that is as far as the range of sanctions that might be pertinent here. But the problem is two fold: first, the material seems rather technical, certainly for me. And secondly, it is always easier to sanction more egregious misconduct that happens once or thrice than that which merely skirts the line, but does so repeatedly, for years. As well, those problematic users of the incremental variety usually trend towards the long-winded, which is an immense barrier for review (the inability to condense, to be concise), though, you haven't been particularly concise, either, to be fair, Libreleah. Of course, the extra length may also be a product of the incremental featuring many more components than the singular. I am also aware of the irony seeing as this very post isn't that brief.

That isn't to say that Yae4's WP:TENDENTIOUS editing isn't also terse at times either, though. But by an immense barrier for review, I mean that many (most?) reviewers on this noticeboard, myself very often among them, when encountering a lengthy, WP:TEXTWALL thread that isn't clear and succinct, are likely to just <skip>. Which isn't unique to Wikipedia necessarily, but to be clear, there is no requirement for a thread on this board to come to some conclusion; there isn't even a requirement for nominal engagement. So threads here often fizzle out for a variety of reasons (some of which I alluded to, some I didn't, some are even random). Anyway, regardless, hope I was able to educate you on the reality of the situation. Because who knows how this thread will be concluded, if at all, so it's perhaps best to temper expectations with these procedures and processes in mind. El_C 04:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree that it's hard to go through. The bulk of the case is in Maddy's opening post and my first reply, which shows a history of incessant aspersions and failing to understand policies to the point of CIR. DFlhb (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

DFlhb, by all means then, feel free to propose any sanction or sanctions you deem suitable. El_C 17:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Holy wowzers, what a gigantic section. My personal experience with user is at a couple of recent AfDs, for libreboot and open-source firmware. In both of these discussions there appears to be some great personal investment by Yae4, who is making many long comments that do not seem to make sense (referencing a consensus at WP:RSN was claiked to be WP:WAX for example). I don't have any opinion on whether or not this person should be blocked or banned. However, unjustified or vexatious AfD filings are a serious issue that wastes time, destroys content and stresses everybody out. I would like for them to not do this any more. jp×g 18:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Despressso fails to WP:DROPTHESTICK

• Despressso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor's commentary on Talk:Colleen Ballinger has almost exclusively focused on pointing out Ssilvers's alleged bias, failing to adhere to talk page guidelines (specifically by failing to stay on topic). The editor has been amply warned throughout by multiple editors here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, yet seems unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, my initial couple of contributions to that Talk page (reacting to some social media accusations as well as another editor's assertions and an attempt to insert into the article a "Controversy" section) were not restrained, but I tried to explain here that my intention is to edit neutrally. The editor Despresso, however, seems to wish to focus on my supposed bias, but I would rather that they focus on the content of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the talk page, I interpreted Ssilvers's comments as a frustration with the tabloid-type sourcing of unsubstantiated rumors and the insistence of more inexperienced editors that every internet accusation deserved mention, but I can see how Despressso might read those same comments as Ssilvers having a subjective bias on the subject, and unfortunately Despressso couldn't let go of that reading. Looking through their contributions, Despressso appears to be a constructive editor; they just don't have much experience yet with BLPs and controversial areas, and got a bit too zealous in trying to counter what (to them) looked like bias in the discussion on the talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This has got to be frustrating for our experienced editors dealing with all this at Talk:Colleen Ballinger, especially Ssilvers and @Throast.

I think much of the problem can be chalked up to new editor passion and lack of familiarity with our multitude of rules and norms. I left a note at User talk:Despressso#Some advice that I hope will be helpful.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@A. B.: And they've just wasted their one chance to not be blocked, and not listened in the slightest to you, Johnuniq, and I. This is now WP:ICHY territory. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It's important to add that, even after about a dozen warnings, an ANI note, and a very generous message by A. B., the editor has continued to use the article talk page to defend their disruptive behavior towards Ssilvers and other editors. Statements like And yes it has to do with the topic and their characterization of another editor's warning as defacing my talk page (diff) tell me that the editor doesn't recognize their disruptive behavior in the slightest, even after several attempts to relay it to them. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTGETTINGIT here, and I’m not 100% sold on how he approached Materialscientist here, nor does this edit summary put me at ease. Could WP:CIVILITY be in play here? MM (Communicate?) ^(Operations) 11:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There is off-wiki evidence suggesting that the editor does not give a flying ... about what's going on here and might even find it amusing. If an admin requests it, I'm happy to provide it. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 12:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think for everybody’s best interests, especially Despresso’s, an admin should go ahead and block him from that article and talk page.

{{ec}} I just saw Throast’s comment. If that’s true, then block him indefinitely.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• I was inclined to just let this be, but the last comments cited by Throast show that Despressso needs to at least take a break from that article. Despressso has been asked numerous times by various editors to act in good faith and apparently none of it is getting through. As Matticusmadness mentioned, this article isn't the only issue. I'm not sure what should be done, but this editor needs to start behaving better. Nemov (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I will not go back to that article nor talk page. That last message was just me defending myself. And yes it was my last message.

  Unrelated, I don’t know why you chose to bring up other things in my contributions. Materialscientist and I have no issues, I was simply informing them to fix their automation. They took it well and nothing happened, I don’t know why it is an issue. I created the page Honkai: Star Rail and I just often monitor it. My message had no ill intent so please leave my other contributions out of this. I am not editing CB article nor talk page anymore. Despressso (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  There is no issue with looking through past contributions. It can help, in these sorts of discussions, if the behaviour in question is a one-time thing or is the latest in a series. That being said, the comment to Materialscientist should have been rephrased in a more polite and civil, especially as Materialscientist is a very experienced editor and admin. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I did not know that at the time, but I was not rude nor vulgar with my remarks. I am sorry if it did come off that way though. Anyways, I apologize for being blunt at the time. And as for why I did it twice: I made the manual revert before reading MS’ user page, which said something along the lines of not checking notifs unless it is their talk page, so I left the notice on there. I wasn’t upset at them, just a bit frustrated with the automated system. Despressso (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Continued addition of poorly sourced and/or unsourced edits by Lost ingrande

Lost ingrande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Through the end of May to this month, I have seen this user persistently add unsourced and/or poorly sourced material to the article Janet Jackson: Together Again, like these edits: [65], [66], [67]. When I had given them a notice on their edits and tried to explain about reliable sources, I was met with name-calling here and here. User also falsely accused me of owning the page when I was acting in part with the guidelines of Wikipedia as their edits seem to go against WP:UGC and WP:RSPTWITTER. Another user, Livelikemusic opened an SPI, as Lost ingrande's edits are familiar to another user, and resorted to name-calling them as well, referring to them as "ignorant" and a "bully". I am starting to believe that they are not willing to listen to the guidelines and still want to push that according to them, "multiple sources have reported on it" when I have not seen any news reports on that song they are adding, have reported on it being performed - as their sources are either user-generated content or from a social network on fan accounts from Twitter. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that this person pretty much talked to me like I was stupid the first time we have ever interacted. They sent me a video of “

citations for beginners “ and has been constantly been reporting me for “ sockpuppetry “ with no evidence by the way to support it and I am not using multiple accounts and I can provide evidence as much. They pretty much decided their own rules and say my sources weren’t good when everyone has used social media for citations. Lost ingrande (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I’ve also provided proof that Janet jackson indeed perform that song at the Kansas City show. Literally, every Janet fan has known this and there’s videos, posts from fans about it but they choose to ignore what I send and just continue to be disrespectful towards me and then have the audacity to report me for sockpuppetry. Lost ingrande (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lost ingrande: Although the claims that you are making may be true, we can't verify them and ensure that it is true. Because of that, it comes under WP:OR. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, in any conversations you may have, please remember to be civil and not to make any personal attacks or cast aspersions. Also, the "citations for beginners" page link is part of a standard template used when reverting users when they have not linked a source. If I (as a more experienced user) was to do the same thing, I would receive the same template. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I SEMI'ed Janet Jackson: Together Again based on on-going disruption there. I have not looked into the sock situation, and my action should not be seen as pre-empting any action against specific users involved. DMacks (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Lost ingrande, please see WP:DR for options to undertake when you are in a dispute. If you want to check the reliability of a source, you can leave a note at WP:RSN. In this particular case, if you attempt multiple times to re-add challenged information using questionable sources (please read WP:RS), that would possibly equate to disruptive behaviour, which may well lead to a block. I would hope you stop adding unsourced/poorly sourced data in BLPs and go by the consensus in article talk page discussions. Thank you, Lourdes 08:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User Denniss

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

---

Denniss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He alway remove a valid source, see here [68] (he is German and may be he don't like a bad new for German weapons)2001:EE0:4262:9440:F4E2:6F76:B938:B578 (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute, I suggest reading WP:BRD and taking the issue to the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned by the above editor, this seems like a content dispute. This notice board is for behavioural issues. If you feel like your additions should stay, then please discuss it on the article in question. You have also forgotten to alert Denniss of this discussion on their talk page, which I have done for you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Found a facebook group with seemingly paid editors

I have accidently come across a FB group for people "wanting" wikipedia pages (FB "suggested" and it seemed innocent until I joined) it seems to have people quite happy to talk to requestors privately about it , is this the right place to report this too? I was think there maybe a group or persons who might want reverse engineer the people on theres wiki id's , shut down them and reverse out their "contributions" Back ache (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. They're not doing anything illegal, but we still can have a look at it to see what happens. We may be able to catch some paid editors. Are you able to disclose the link? E-mail it to me if you want, I'm curious. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

thank you, I have emailed you :-) Back ache (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Back ache: Please email paid-en-wpwikipedia.org with off-Wiki evidence of PAID editing -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like great honey trap. For Pete's sake, don't try to out it or shut it down. Just quietly watch. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sending it through, I've had a look through. It seems to be owned by some guy who's absolutely obsessed with being on Wikipedia, and I've confirmed two accounts through images posted: User talk:Wayne Ray Chavis and User talk:Wayraycha. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Category removals by MagicatthemovieS

User User:MagicatthemovieS

Pages Pocahontas (character), 2023 Target Pride Month merchandise backlash, and many other you can see on Special:Contributions/MagicatthemovieS.

Issue: User keeps removing categories from pages without clarification, they have been warned by three different users on three occasions, yet they continue to edit. This is my first use of the page, so I apologize if this is formatted incorrectly. Please let me know if edits are needed! This user is continuing to edit as we speak and I wanted to pass it along. Thank you! Glman99 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Per their talk page, it appears that category work by MagicatthemovieS has been disputed multiple times over the past several years. Sometimes Magic has explained their reasoning.[69][70] Magic never responded to the most recent comments (between April and now) on their talk page questioning their category changes,[71] although in a related conversation at User talk:Valereee, another editor justified one of Magic's changes. It's possible that all of the recent category changes Magic has made are appropriate but it's not a good situation that they have failed to respond to other editors' concerns. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Note - After further digging, I think I can find reasoning for several edits now, however, the lack of response on the talk page for multiple instances is an issue. Please feel free to remove this posting if needed, my apologies. Glman99 (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed categories if the age was in a subcategory, like the character of Pocahontas is under Fictional Native American women, so Fictional Native American people seemed redundant. Ditto for "Transphobia in the United States" and "2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States." I thought I was being constructive but clearly, I made some users really upset. That was not my intent. However, some users seem to be on my side now.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)MagiccatthemovieS

Wikipedia:Communication is required as soon as fellow editors voice good-faith objections to your edits. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I've run into MATM at other articles, while some of their edits can appear troublesome at first, they are often found to be fairly reasonable upon further inspection. The somewhat lack of communication remains an issue though, it seems. DN (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to improve on that front.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)MagiccatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: Have you read the guideline Wikipedia:Categorisation? You really should if you're going to regularly add or remove categories. In particular, it's not clear to me you've considered WP:ALLINCLUDED which notes that "Subcategories defined by gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality should almost always be non-diffusing subcategories". While it doesn't particular comment on subcategories for fictional characters and nor does Wikipedia:Categorisation/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and the guidance at Category:Fictional Native American people may or may not override that, you need to at least be aware of the general guidance if you're going to be active in this area. (I will comment further on this on your talk page.) As mentioned by others, talking about these issues when your actions are queried is also essential. Nil Einne (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Professional wrestling vandalism/edit-war/bias

I didn't want to fill this page with a load of text, but everything related to the incident can be found of the talk page page of the article can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Professional_wrestling#This_whole_article_has_become_ridiculous RedWater14 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RedWater14, administrators don't judge content disputes. Try the options at dispute resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Professional wrestling? Ridiculous? No, really?! --JBL (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RedWater14: You did not notify Kurzon, the editor you are ostensibly reporting, to this discussion, as it says you must do at the top of this page. I have done that for you.

I have to go into work and then I have a date tonight. If I'm sober enough tonight or have enough time in the morning tomorrow, I can look over their editing as an uninvolved editor with enough knowledge of professional wrestling to hopefully grasp an idea of what's going on. I see @Czello and LM2000: are also potential parties here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This was a neat glimpse into your life. Let us know if you get lucky tonight — Czello ^(music) 19:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm lucky every day, though! :] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Thank you though. I believe the editor is clearly abusing several Wikipedia guidelines and no one has called him out on it for months. Good luck hahaha. RedWater14 (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

RedWater14 is out of line to call my work vandalism. His entire argument is that I draw too much attention to the fakeness of wrestling, as if that denigrates it. Maybe I committed some minor excesses in the course of my work, but he can comment on those in the Talk Page without wholesale reverts.Kurzon (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As both editors are well beyond 3RR at this point I recommend Kurzon doesn't revert the latest edit and instead RedWater14 self-reverts. I think that's the only thing that'd stop blocks being applied. — Czello ^(music) 19:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I see my suggestion didn't do much good — Czello ^(music) 19:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I won't be making anymore edits until Wiki admins reach a consensus. I hope they can see for themselves how, for a lack of a better word, foolish Kurzon's edits are. RedWater14 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Too late, both partially blocked for two weeks. Kurzon is experienced enough to should have known better, but even a red warning didn't stop them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(for the record, I'm here from a WP:RFPP request, permanent link.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting little tidbit; smells like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to go to both RFPP and here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think malice was involved, and starting a conduct discussion at ANI after noticing that RFPP might not be the best noticeboard for this isn't bad either. It's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@RedWater14: Don't you know how Wikipedia works? WE are supposed to reach a consensus, not the admins. Kurzon (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) As you were told in the very first reply to your posting here, admins have no more rights than anyone else, including you, to reach a consensus about what reliable sources say about the subject. Follow the link to dispute resolution you were given there, and, everyone, just stop editing this article until everyone, admin or not, reaches a consensus on its talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This was also explained to them by 331dot in the linked discussion three days ago. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Just chiming in since I was tagged. The two week blocks for both parties seems just. Kurzon's battleground behavior has been going on for months at this point and RedWater14's involvement turned up the heat way higher than it should have. General sanctions (WP:PW/GS) were imposed on this subject years ago to stop silly conflicts like this but that has not really changed anything. LM2000 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2023‎ (UTC)

About battleground behavior, I guess you're referring to [72] or similar edits. A diff or two wouldn't hurt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that both Kurzon and RedWater14 are at fault here. It would be good to get outside parties to assess the state of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has been watching this play out for a few months now, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I think Kurzon has done a very thorough rewrite of the article and has cited a lot of sources. On the other hand, there does seem to be somewhat of an WP:AXE to grind on Kurzon's part in delegitimising wrestling (one example of something I spotted a few days ago). I'm going to try to spend the next couple of weeks reading through the article and checking that the sources support what's represented in the article. I may rewrite a few sections to be a bit more neutral. — Czello ^(music) 07:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That's been my whole point essentially. It's an axe to grind, there's bias and it's very opinionated. He claims to be "knowledgeable" on wrestling but uses no wrestling terminology. He uses "faked", etc, instead of "worked" "shoot" "over" etc, as should be used in the article. He even went on the WWE 2K series page, which is a factually sports series of games and he changed the genre to "spectacle" and some other ridiculous phrasing. He's gone out of his way on other articles to diminish the medium. He himself even said he doesn't consider themselves wrestlers, using the example of Hulk Hogan, who's one of the biggest wrestling stars in history, just because he has whatever problem he has with him.

One of the sections of the article he puts quotes around "professional" as in calling it professional is somehow inaccurate, when he doesn't realize the term professional by definition means someone who was paid. Amatuer wrestlers were not paid for their matches, while professional wrestlers were. That's where the names come from. He himself acknowledged that, yet he goes and calls "professional" a misnomer, as it's somewhat inaccurate to call it "professional." And then he goes on another rant calling them stuntmen, etc, not athletes, which again, IS VERY OPINIONATED and has no sources or hell, even common sense, to back that up. Even the biggest detractors of professional wrestling will call them athletes, and respect their work ethic.

Anyway, I hope a solution can be found to it soon, but there's so many abuses to Wikipedia's guidelines here, it's not even funny. Honestly, the pro wrestling article has always sucked and has needed improvement for a long time. All this guy did was just make it worse and more illegitimate. RedWater14 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with a lot of this - I've fixed the scare quotes he added. — Czello ^(music) 16:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know who's right and who's wrong here overall, but if Kurzon is helping push our coverage of "pro" wrestling away from the ridiculous in-universe treatment our articles largely give it now, I'm behind him or her. EEng 17:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not really the case, as in-universe treatment is more of a blight on BLP and event articles. — Czello ^(music) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think it can be complicated as pro wrestling blurs the lines of reality and fiction a lot, so using wrestling terms in the article is the best way to go about it. You could literally make an entire dictionary of pro wrestling specific terms. Hell, there's an entire article on it: Glossary of professional wrestling terms.

  Using terms like "faked" is inaccurate, and in my opinion, insulting. Not to even mention the fact that the word "theater" means some sort of staging or performance is included. In the same line, he insists on adding "mock" to the combat, which is a contradiction in the same phrase and by calling it "theater", you already know there is a performance aspect to it. It's like me saying on the John Wick movie article "This is a movie where there is mock combat." Of course it's staged/choreographed/performed, whatever. You don't need to add that in as it sounds ridiculous. That's just one part of it that's ridiculous. I've already mentioned several above. RedWater14 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Faked" is 150% accurate. Articles routinely say stuff like ...

  Cena then sought the WWE Championship, held by Brock Lesnar. He entered a number one contender's tournament for the title, gaining upset wins over Eddie Guerrero,[44] The Undertaker[45] and Chris Benoit.[46] At Backlash on April 27, Cena failed to win the title from Lesnar.[47] On May 18 at Judgment Day, Cena and The F.B.I. (Chuck Palumbo and Johnny Stamboli) defeated Benoit, Rhyno and Spanky.[48] At Vengeance on July 27, Cena lost to The Undertaker.

  ... as if these are actual contests between actual competitors, instead of faked, fixed-outcome performances. Articles on novels and movies narrate works' events in-universe, but that's in clearly labeled "plot" sections. "Pro" wrestling articles, including BLPs, freely mix the stories of faked "contests" in with birth, education (if any, of course), marriages, death, and other real-life events. EEng 23:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  How about "Character biography" sections? (Superhero articles have "Fictional character biography" sections, but we needn't insist.) NebY (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah but any article describing the plot of a movie, game, etc, does the same thing. It doesn't say "But it in the script, he beat..." etc. Anyone who knows anything about pro wrestling will automatically know it's part of the storyline. RedWater14 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  First of all, I'm not at all certain that more than 50% of fans of this idiocy do know it's fake; there are a lot of truly stupid people in this world -- witness those who think Trump lost the presidency because of Jewish lasers controlled by Nest thermostats. And there's no other topic area in which we make flatly false statements in wikivoice with the expectation that our readers will know that we're actually spouting bullshit. EEng 07:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I know you're not a fan, EEng, so take it from people who are: yes, we all know it's fake. That said WP:INUNIVERSE is a perennial problem and some of us on the Wikiproject are working to fix this. — Czello ^(music) 07:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I could believe that y'all editing here know that; but for the general fan base: . If you could try harder on the INUNIVERSE front we'd all appreciate it. EEng 07:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the general fanbase knows that too. (I'm always continually amazed when non-wrestling fans think they know more about the industry than actual wrestling fans, amazing.) Thank you for your suggestion EEng, it's very helpful and I'll get right on that. — Czello ^(music) 08:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  the general fanbase knows that too – You keep saying that, and I keep saying . But even taking that as true, I think there's another problem. Even fans who know (in some corner their brains) that it's all faked still enjoy the kemosabe, and don't like to see it pierced. Thus they want this in-universe garbage preserved in our articles. EEng 00:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  ... do you fancy that your repeated snark is doing anything by way of lowering the temperature here? Ravenswing 11:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, we'll go with that for the sake of argument (my wife's pro wrestling-loving elementary school students would vehemently disagree). But truly, is there any other area of Wikipedia where no distinction is visibly made between a real-life person and their stage persona? Articles on historical religious figures, for instance, are riddled with language like "X reported that" and "According to Y," rather than phrasing miracles or legends as objective fact. Those articles describing the plot do not do so in the main body of an article, but are plainly labeled "Plot."

  The bottom line is that we're a factual encyclopedia here. I'm unsure why we need to preserve kayfabe. Ravenswing 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. With the help of fans editing here, WP has become an extension of the pro-wrestling industry's fanzsites and other promotional apparatus. EEng 07:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  See, I'm unsure why you're resisting so hard here. I get it: I've been a wrestling watcher since the days of Sammartino, Stasiak and Morales; living in Springfield, a frequent tour stop for the WWF, I'd write match reports for Online Onslaught. I get kayfabe, and you can't write me off as a clueless outsider. I'm also sympathetic to some of your complaints; I agree that calling other kinds of wrestling "authentic" is a bit bizarre, and I've always been partial to Dwayne Johnson's line that while he agrees that pro wrestling is scripted, it ain't "fake."

  What I do not get is why the likes of you and Czello are digging in your heels over this. However much you might think all moviegoers and novel readers get that they're dealing with fictional works, those articles still have "Plot" sections; no one's claiming to be insulted over that. However much you might think that all comic book readers get that superheroes aren't real, those articles still have "Fictional character biography" sections; no one's claiming to be insulted over that. You cannot possibly imagine that you'd have more resistance towards pushing through some clear section heads and phrasings taking scripted wrestling plot out of factual voice than there must have been (and still is) in religious topics over Wikipedia's ongoing refusal to certify the miracles of Muhammed, or Jesus, or the Buddha (etc etc etc) as inerrant fact. What exactly is the holdup here, if it isn't "We don't want to come out and openly concede that it's all scripted, because there are a lot of fanboys reading the articles who'd be pissed?" Ravenswing 11:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can't speak for RedWater but I have no issue with reducing the amount of plot sections / WP:INUNIVERSE fluff that exist across the wrestling sphere of Wikipedia. I have no issue with the description of wrestling as fake. That doesn't mean there weren't NPOV issues with some of Kurzon's edits (though, to be clear, I believe the good of his work on the article in question considerably outweighs the bad). I'm not in favour of undoing their edits, I'm in favour of improving them. — Czello ^(music) 11:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not reduce, ELIMINATE. NOW. IMMEDIATELY. ON SIGHT. WHAT'S THE WAIT? EEng 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  For some with less capslock, two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  FTR, I NEVER USE CAPSLOCK. I DEPRESS <SHIFT> FOR EACH LETTER INDIVIDUALLY. EEng 23:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I implore you to fix Kurzon's calling of other wrestling forms as "authentic" as those aren't the dictionary terms, and is more opinion/bias based. Even so, I think that whole section is ridiculous, irrelevant, and much of what is stated is stated several terms throughout the rest of the article. There is no need for a delineation there. RedWater14 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to suggest we close this discussion as 1) it was the wrong venue for this topic in the first place 2) both users have been p-blocked from the article and 3) further discussion is going no where. — Czello ^(music) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Suggestion rejected. EEng 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The "mock" in "mock combat" means to fake something without intention to deceive. It does not mean mockery. When I was in high school, they made us sit mock exams to prepare us for the real things, and we took the mocks very seriously. RedWater14 should consult a dictionary once in a while.

Also, it's absolutely necessary to emphasize the fakery of wrestling in the history section so that we can understand why it became what it is. If pro wrestling is theatre, then it is a very unconventional kind of theatre. Pro wrestlers at first (early 20th century) were deliberately deceiving the audience, particularly the carnival wrestlers who were duping visitors into challenging a champion they couldn't beat (the equivalent of pool hustlers). Eventually the public realized it was fake, but some if not most fans quietly accepted it. And just as quietly, the wrestlers acknowledged this by making their performances more outlandish and adopting personas.

Pro wrestling is not to my taste, but that doesn't mean I can't keep my personal bias out of the article. That would be like saying people who hate Nazis are not fit to edit the Nazi Party article. Note that nowhere in the article do I denigrate pro wrestling or its fans. If I ignore kayfabe, that's because of my commitment to the truth. If anything, we need more non-fans editing this article to filter away the fancruft. I edit this article not to trash wrestling but because I'm a history nerd and I love learning about how the world works. Kurzon (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Raymarcbadz

User:Raymarcbadz continues to recreate Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics, after being warned multiple times to not do so. The latest discussion being here [73]. I think there maybe some competence issues here among other pieces of editing I have had to discuss with this editor. Just bringing this here to the wider community because clearly they are not understanding they shouldn't be repeatedly creating this article (among others). I propose a creation ban on Olympic related articles, because this editor also has issues with citing sources in articles that have nothing to do with the article, here is my chain with them discussing this [74]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz seems to be repeatedly harping on "why Eritrea???" and not a similarly created Algeria at the 2024 Summer Olympics. While an editor of his longevity and edit count -- not to mention his long history of editing disputes over Olympic articles -- should not remotely be ignorant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I've taken the liberty of nominating the latter for deletion, and hope that eases his mind. Ravenswing 23:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing a creation ban. How will you enforce this rule? I've published over a thousand articles about the Olympic athletes throughout a decade-long experience and you will impose me such rule of a creation ban. Isn't this a violation to the right of freedom? I also left a section on WT:OLY about this matter. Raymarcbadz (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of something an editor with your longevity should know about ... first off, you know -- or you ought to know -- that with this being a private website, all editing on Wikipedia is a privilege. You have exactly three "rights:" your right to copy Wikipedia content to an independent encyclopedia, your right to a copyright of your own work (which is automatically licensed to Wikipedia as a condition of editing), and your right to leave Wikipedia. There is no "right to freedom" here.

As to how a topic ban works, you should review WP:TBAN. Should such a ban be imposed, either by admins or the community, there are various avenues of appeal. With that, were you to violate such a ban, you would be subject to more severe sanctions, up to indefinite blocks. Seventeen years in, if you aren't aware that Wikipedia has rules of the road which you are as liable to follow as any other editor, it's time and past time for you to better inform yourself. Ravenswing 01:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What if I already created an article and cited a reliable source mentioning the Olympic athlete on several parts of the content? Are you planning to file a deletion or rule violation? Do you want to assign somebody else to create an article? Raymarcbadz (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Were you to receive a tban from Olympic articles, then it would be up to others to maintain, edit, defend, source or delete (or not) as they saw fit such articles that you created, much the same as if you'd left Wikipedia altogether. Ravenswing 01:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Never received a WP:TBAN from the administrators. Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The WP:CIR problem is slowly coming into clearer focus. EEng 08:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Seventeen years and 90,000 edits in, it's not merely the startling ignorance of several key policies and guidelines (judging from his comments in that AfD, it seems that for someone whose activity is in creating articles on Olympians, he's unaware that simply being an Olympian was deprecated from being a presumptive notability pass, two years ago) that's an issue. Ravenswing 19:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"simply being an Olympian was deprecated from being a presumptive notability pass" – Why do these users intend to develop a strict policy on the article creation for the Olympians through the presumptive notability pass. Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz WP:NSPORTS was updated as a result of WP:NSPORTS2022. It might be worthwhile checking if there are any relevant updates that effect your work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban: They did not recreate the article, they created a redirect to Eritrea at the Olympics. Based on the pages listed at Category:Nations at the 2024 Summer Olympics, it's a possible search term, so I don't see an issue with this redirect creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  The log shows they recreated the same article directly after it was draftified by AfD. It was deleted again, and then they created the redirect. I don't think a topic ban is required here, but Raymarcbadz needs to accept consensus and use the proper channels (WP:DRV/etc) if they disagree. An editor that has been here as long as Raymarcbadz, and has done such good work in that time, should be aware of such things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @ActivelyDisinterested. I hadn't noticed that history and initially interpreted this report to be about the redirect creations. I've struck part of my above comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you're wishful of knowing more, take a look at Raymarcbadz's comments in this AfD discussion generally, and these in particular: [75] [76]. I'm not sold myself on whether his actions are worthy of a topic ban. I am increasingly concerned as to whether he has the competence to edit Wikipedia at all, and his habit of acting as if his edit/article creation count immunizes him from scrutiny does not ease such worries: [77] [78] [79] Ravenswing 02:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've struck my above comment opposing a topic ban. I initially opposed because I thought this report based on the creation of the redirects, not the attempts to re-create the articles, which I am now fully aware of. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Repeated reversal, even of attempt at dialogue

আকাশ নাথ সরকার (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I added content to the Wiki page Akhand Bharat, using a CNN article as a source. User @আকাশ নাথ সরকার: then reverted it, calling it unsourced opinion. I found that strange. I re-added it, stating CNN is a RS. After some intermediate edits, the user reverted it again. I, once more re-added it, and started a new section on the article's talk page, where I pinged the user, and asked why he was reverting it, as I thought it was a RS, in an attempt to get some dialogue and resolve the issue. What did the user do? He reverted my talk page edit. I don't know what to do, so I figured this was the appropriate venue. Thanks. Euor (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Another editor restored your comment to the article talk page. It isn't a good sign that আকাশ নাথ সরকার's:most recent comment to a user or article talk page was Sep 2021 and that they've edited an article rather than respond to the ANI notification. Schazjmd (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Considering the second reversal came rather surreptitiously after some days of intermediate editing by others, I am somewhat worried they will wait some time and revert it again. I might be wrong though. The person's user page states they are Indian, and I recognize that the article is a politically or ideologically contentious and sensitive one for many Indians and neighboring countries. Yet I am concerned about the talk page reversal signalling little desire to engage on the topic, and the continued reversal even after I pointed out the source I used is RS. Oh well.--Euor (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• আকাশ নাথ সরকার, hello. What is the issue here? Please respond and please do not undertake similar edits such as those described above until the issue has been resolved. Repetitive removal of sourced material is considered disruptive. Thank you, Lourdes 08:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Encyclopedia Britannica is better than Wikipledia

I'm requesting to unblock talk page access of this account (in the case for this account to send unblock request, for example), because this user never edited own talk page, despite being globally locked. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The global lock blocks them from even logging in to request unblock via their talk page, so this would do nothing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

All the accounts edits were pure vandalism, they're never getting unblocked. Unblocking the talk page just gives us something to waste people's time on. Zero point or benefit to the project or other editors to do so. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

OP why are you so heavily interested in this account I wonder? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

A good question indeed. I for one would like to know what this edit to a blocked user's talk page is about. Am I missing something about autogenerated edit summaries, or was the summary of this Undo very weirdly rewritten to imply something other than what it actually changed? I don't recall ever seeing something like this before. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

That Ukrtelecom IP is noted as probably dynamic. The edit history across 4 Wikimedia projects looks like multiple people have used it recently. No blocks or warnings on the other projects. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Psychicmuppet

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

---

Psychicmuppet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has a history of bloating plot summaries w/ excessive detail and the behavior has continued despite repeated warnings. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems more like a content dispute between the two of you rather than something appropriate for WP:ANI. Have you tried to explain to this person that they need to try to keep plot summaries concise? Professor Penguino (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought that too until I saw their talk page. They've been warned several times, mine being only the latest. Each warning uses the standard templates, which contain advice about the need for conciseness and links to appropriate policy. This is not just between the two of us; it's an ongoing problem w/ this editor. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha. After reviewing their edits and warnings, I definitely agree that they are ignoring warnings. What do you propose to resolve the situation? Professor Penguino (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Is that really my call to make? I used the warning template that threatens them w/ a block, so I suppose if it were me, I'd keep an eye on this editor and block them after their next offense. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think that would be a wise course of action. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? Will the admins read this and place him on a "monitor and block list?" Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

To be totally honest, I don't know. Hopefully they will. Professor Penguino (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Just Another Cringy Username, thanks for the report. This is a content dispute. Please see WP:DR for possible resolutions. Also, giving a final warning on a content issue is not the appropriate thing to do. Open up talk page discussions in the relevant article and engage with them there, rather than giving incorrect warnings. Thank you, Lourdes 08:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

POV naming alterations from Typical Albanian

Typical Albanian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is going around renaming links to places in Kosovo from their article names to the alternative Albanian name, as well unilaterally altering article names.

In the Kosovo article, they removed Slavic names from the lead and piped the names of the remaining places throughout the article that were Slavic/Serbian to Albanian names, contrary to the article pages' title. When myself and another editor tried to explain to them that this isn't the right procedure, they continued edit-warring. 1 2 3 4 5

Afterwards, they created a new article with an Albanian name, which is actually a duplicate of another article that already exists and merged the existing one into the new one they made. 7 8 When I tried explaining to them that they can't do this and if they want to change an article name that might be contested they need to request it via WP:RM, they ignored and continued to edit-war with me and another editor. 9 10 11 They were blocked for 24 hours as a result. 12

It seemed like they understood the proper procedures, and yet they continued the same type of editing afterwards. Changing an article's name in the lead with a misleading edit summary 13 and going back to altering links in the Kosovo article under the guise of "minor changes" 14 15

I'm making a report as I feel it's warranted given that they have blocked once and were warned multiple times already. This kind of nit-picky nationalist/POV pushing is disruptive, especially if it's allowed to drag on. Griboski (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Since -- according to our article, Kosovo -- 92% of the population of Kosovo is Albanian, and presumably speaks some variety of the Albanian language, wouldn't the Albanian names be the proper ones to use in the article, with the Serbian versions (Serbians make up 4% of the population, and Serbian is the other official language) given in parentheses? Am I missing something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

(nods to BMK) I confess to wanting to know myself. Why are those Serbian names the primary ones in there in the first place? Fair enough, those articles you linked were created before Kosovo's secession, but that was 15 years ago now. Nationalist POV pushing goes in more than one direction. Ravenswing 04:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo articles fall under the Wikipedia contentious topic area of Eastern Europe/Balkans. As such, page moves should be done via discussion (WP:RM) and consensus. It also isn't always easy or clear cut as automatically using the Albanian name because page naming conventions tend to go by the name most commonly used in English sources (WP:COMMON NAME); there are municipalities in North Kosovo with a Serb-majority as well. And it's pretty simple, if a Wikipedia article is called something, then that is the link that should be used. Either way, the solution to achieve the desired results is not to continuously circumvent guidelines and ignore warnings by repeatedly making cut and paste moves and overwriting links.--Griboski (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

To which I've a couple responses. First off, I'm not seeing on your links anything mandating a page move in a contentious area to achieve a talk page consensus prior to any such move; it is suggested where someone could reasonably disagree, which I'd question how "reasonable" such an objection could be, in this case. Secondly, COMMONNAME applies to few geographical features in the Balkans generally; how many such features in Kosovo do you believe are mentioned frequently enough in English-language sources to have established a standard? Thirdly, yes, there are some municipalities in North Kosovo with a Serb majority; identify for us, please, which of those articles have been changed by Typical Albanian. (If, in fact, there aren't any, then kindly do not muddy the dispute with irrelevancies.)

But finally, other than TA hasn't jumped through the hoops you want him to jump through, what exactly is your objection to the moves? Certainly, in TA's boots, I would not possibly imagine that anyone would object to geographical features in an Albanian-speaking country being referred to by their proper names in Albanian ... other than on the nitpicking, nationalist POV grounds you deplore. Ravenswing 07:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Although I agree COMMONNAME is rather unlikely to apply, the process should still be done correctly. Edit warring and copypaste moves aren't the way forward, especially in an contentious topic area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Asking someone to not edit-war with cut and paste moves and link alterations is not asking them to "jump through hoops". And if you're going to accuse me of muddying the dispute with irrelevancies, you might not want to write a whole paragraph that addresses everything but the editor's conduct. Griboski (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

To answer a general query, there isn't a mandate to do RM, but is considered good practice and standard in this area as it is a contentious and sensitive one. This might not be obvious to those who don't edit in this area. This is the English Wikipedia so yes WP:COMMON NAME applies and it's been almost always used as the argument in move discussions, whether one thinks it is appropriate or not. Here are a few successful precedents from recent memory: 1 (and pre-2008 2) 3 4 5 6 To clarify, I am not against moves to Albanian names per se, it should just be done properly and that is the crux of the thread. --Griboski (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The reason why it isn't "standard" to treat bold moves as a priori improper in contentious topic areas is that bold moves can simply be reversed by anyone, without even requiring a substantive rationale. This makes such a provision completely unnecessary and erases the difference of doing bold moves in and outside of contentious topics. Just revert all the moves you disagree with, it doesn't matter whether it is or isn't a contentious topic. How many moves of all types has Typical Albanian made, and how many cut-and-paste moves specifically has he made? —Alalch E. 13:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• There is no inherent requirement to launch WP:RMs for moves of pages covered by a WP:CTOP sanction regime, like WP:BALKANS in this instance. Especially if these are originally viewed as intuitive / uncontroversial. One may still be WP:BOLD in that sense, but if there are objections, they should be discussed, with a resolution reached before proceeding further. But it is likely that Typical Albanian wasn't even aware of WP:BALKANS, as they've yet to have been given the required initial alert, {{alert/first}}, that bring WP:BALKANS into effect. I have now done this. El_C 09:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am the Typical Albanian that you are speaking about. I have a reply for each of the cases that Griboski has linked but that would be too long for this reply. As you probably figured out, I am an Albanian from Kosovo. Kosovo has 90+ % Albanians and we had toponyms for the cities, lakes, rivers, mountains and every other geographical notions even before Serbs were in the Balkans. So, I started changing them at first because I didn't know that that should not be done. I even made a whole new page for the topic of "Llapi River", a river that passes through my hometown and I for sure know that it is not called "Lab" by anyone except Serbs. I got blocked by ignorance but I initiated a name change after I knew the procedures. So why should names of geographical notions in Kosovo be in Serbian when it's in Kosovo territory, this I don't get.

Serbian is of course an official language of Kosovo, but they consist only a minority of 5-6 % of the population and many of the names for Kosovo Articles here in Wikipedia are in Serbian. I think that this is simply not right! The pages were created primarly by Serbs at first, but they should have their name changed after the independence of Kosovo. They can have their Serbian name written in the article since it is a official language in Kosovo as Albanian name articles have but not the name to be in Serbian.

And about English sources, you can not find many English sources that are written by foreign people, but we study our lakes, rivers, mountains etc. and we have articles in English about them as I have mentioned in the talk page of "Llapi River". This common name thing is being used by users like Griboski that clearly don't want the Albanian names, which are in use today, to be used in articles in Wikipedia.

Also, I don't know if you have noticed but I did not change the names of Serbian-areas in Kosovo. I just know that that's the name in use today and that does not bother me.

And, Griboski, I type minor changes because it really is a minor change, I am not disguising anything because all the changes are transparent here.

So please reflect on my point of view. This reply is also directed to others. One question also, should I start name changes in all Serbian name places in Kosovo? Typical Albanian (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You should work toward gaining WP:CONSENSUS for those changes before doing anything further en masse, Typical Albanian. A determination that should probably happen in some central venue, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo, for example. I'd also advise both yourself and Griboski to be more concise, overall. El_C 17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by .Raven

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

---

User @.Raven: has been tenaciously engaging on the RfC at Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Name_Inclusion,_reopened Talk: Killing of Jordan Neely to the point of disruption. The discussion is about the inclusion of the name of Neely's killer in the article, and mainly about whether it violates or passes BLP.

.Raven has essentially been spamming the comments with the fringe and undue viewpoint that we can't really know that Neely's killer actually killed him at all. On it's own, this is slightly disruptive, but not enough for me to create an ANI. But they also hold the view that Reliable Sources in general cannot be trusted, nor used as a basis to include information in articles. And they have spammed comments supporting this view into virtually every discussion between other editors on the page, effectively derailing them all. Some of these comments include:

• We can't rely on RSs because the Babylonians were incorrect about the value of Pi
• If any RS has an interpretation of a Medical Examiner's report that is different than .Raven's interpretation, then that RS should be immediately discounted as unreliable
  • Doubling down on this one, by claiming that RSs who disagreed with their interpretation must be "factually incorrect."
• If hundreds of RSs agree on a basic fact, we can't repeat it, because hundreds of RSs smeared the Central Park Five back in 1989
  • They repeated this argument six times in total, to five different editors. [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

Among many, many others. They have also done their own original research, by analyzing the scene and events of the incident themself to draw conclusions (and dismiss RSs conclusions), meanwhile accusing Reliable Sources of original research and synthesis (which we've had to explain is indeed what they are there to do). In general, I find their attitude about RSs, and statements about them to be highly disruptive.

Over the last two days, at least three editors (including myself) have asked them to stop the disruptive behavior, but it is still continuing, so I brought it here. The RfC, instead of focusing on arguments for and against inclusion of a person's name, is now largely an exercise in futility as editors try in vain to explain the most fundamental concepts of creating an encyclopedia to an editor who clearly doesn't want to listen.

At this point, I just want the behavior to stop on that RfC. It's cluttered and overwhelming as it is. Part of that is my fault, for arguing my case rather enthusiastically (too much so, I admit), and perhaps for engaging far too much with this editor in my assumption that they could be reasoned with. In any case, that RfC is simply not the place to be discussing whether RSs have any place on the encyclopedia, or whether RS are allowed to do original research and synthesis. There's actually a very lively, and substantive conversation over there about the interpretation of BLP, and it's getting drowned out by a lot of noise about the Central Park Five and the Babylonians.

Combefere ★ Talk 04:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• On the one hand, .Raven could probably do with less 'repeating' so as to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. But on the other, robust debate is allowed, including making a point about reliable sources needing to contain updated information (WP:RS in service of WP:V, not the other way); or what designation conforms to WP:BLPCRIME; and so on. I might be missing something, but as far as I can see, there isn't anything in your report that stands out as actionable to me, Combefere, beyond that caution at least (though other admins' mileage may vary). El_C 05:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• This is strawman argumentation by Combefere, attempting to turn a content dispute into a behavioral issue, i.e. lawfaring:

  We can't rely on RSs because the Babylonians were incorrect about the value of Pi

  If any RS has an interpretation of a Medical Examiner's report that is different than .Raven's interpretation, then that RS should be immediately discounted as unreliable

  Doubling down on this one, by claiming that RSs who disagreed with their interpretation must be "factually incorrect."

  If hundreds of RSs agree on a basic fact, we can't repeat it, because hundreds of RSs smeared the Central Park Five back in 1989

  You are invited to see my actual posts in that thread, if you care to. I'm not going to reprint them here. I'll note that I corrected Combefere's interpretations to Combefere on two of those items, but those strawmen are repeated here with two new ones. – .Raven  .talk 05:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  .Raven: With all due respect, you have been taking up waaaay too much space in the RfC discussion on the talk page about the killing of Jordan Neely. You've made your point (over and over and over again). We get it. But you don't have to keep repeating yourself, and in fact, it is disruptive. I have even said as much on your very own talk page, yesterday. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Combefere, at some point, just don't respond further if you've made your point. You do not have to persuade .Raven. RfCs are decided by consensus, which usually means a majority !vote barring irregularities (sockpuppeting, etc.). They are never decided by word count. If Raven wins the word count, it's OK.

.Raven, human nature being what it is, if you pound people enough they're going to plant their feet in defiance. I suggest you've taken this so far as to probably be counterproductive to your desired outcome. Something to think about.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your own well-meant advice. I'd intended to post the one response above and stop. Since you address me specifically, I'll respond. As to other discussions: I had hoped to quit commenting for the night last night. But then being told I'd said something I hadn't said — or, as above, seeing other people being told I've said something I haven't said — seems to require correction, however brief, in order not to let the misrepresentation stand unchallenged. I can't read minds; if the misrepresentation was accidental, then my corrections could have been accepted instead of them being ignored and the misrepresentations being repeated. If it was deliberate, in order to get me to post responses which would then be charged against me, then I think there are terms for it. – .Raven  .talk 06:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything actionable here. Both Combefere and Raven have a ton of edits in that discussion. Both would be wise to walk away from the topic for awhile, but I believe they were making arguments in goof faith. The horse is dead though, so find a new horse. Nemov (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• First I'd like to point out that @.Raven made at least two good arguments in the RfC, one directed at me that was on-topic for the RfC, the other was off-topic for the RfC but correctly refuted a widely-stated falsehood about a key fact in the case, which I remedied in the article itself and notified .Raven of the change. Which brings me to the negative; his reply here to @Combefere about "attempting to turn a content dispute into a behavioral issue" is still missing the point that he does have the behavioral issue of dragging the RfC off-topic. Some of his points do warrant discussion, but in the appropriate context. If he shows recognition of that here, then I think we can close without any sanction. Xan747 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  My last comment (and I very much hope I can mean last in both senses) noted WP:NOTVOTE in reply to someone referring to "votes/comments" and hatting their replies — some of which addressed policy/guideline compliance, or even definitions like Public figure. That is in one sense "off-topic", not the question the RfC asked, but in another sense very much on-topic to the RfC's presentation. – .Raven  .talk 17:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Nemov's summary makes most sense to me, as the path of least resistance. So I'm inclined to close it with a hopefully lessons learned. El_C 14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just a quick note that I asked both Combefere and .Raven on their talk pages to disengage a few hours ago, having not seen that this was going on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  The response and refusal to acknowledge the point of your comment by .Raven is not encouraging, but let's hope they do get it and behavior changes. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  @.Raven I suggest you stop[85] or everyone's patience will be exhausted. Nemov (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Frequent disruptive editings and vandalism by an anonymous user

I have a query regarding adding new destinations in airport articles. For the last few days, I am constantly noticing that an unauthorised user is removing the edits, including a few others too, stating that they are not 'official' sources and that the airline itself has not announced anything on new destinations. But, when we are adding the destinations with valid and official sources published by one of the agencies of Network18 Group, Moneycontrol, without which we could not have been able to add the destinations had that agency not published the news report, that to also directly stating about the announcement of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (India) (DGCA), still that unauthorised user is reverting the edits. We all know here that whatever is added on Wikipedia needs a valid source for verification. Even after giving frequent warnings to that user, 202.134.183.23, stating not to disrupt and vandalize even after adding valid citations, still it seems that there is no effect on that user. This user has done frequent vandalism and disruptions in the past too. Even when a user warned him that he had been notified to the admins for his vandalism, it was of no use. He also gave me messages in my talk page with the name "Unwanted". His messages look like he is the one who thinks that he is the owner of all articles on Wikipedia; can getaway with whatever he does and he likes to do, but he cannot be interrupted or objected; he wants support, irrespective of his edits being good or bad. I did not reply to any of his messages as he tried to treat me as an inferior. So, now, there is no room to give the user any more chances except to block him. I request to take action at the earliest and help stop these type of people from further disrupting and vandalizing Wikipedia, as a majority of anonymous users have always been a nuisance to Wikipedia. Thanks. Altoumulus (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Altoumulus, the IP should have been informed by you about this posting. I have informed them now. I don't see any vandalism by the IP. Do you have any specific diffs? I also do not see any discussion from you on these issues. Please stop issuing redundant warnings to the IP and treating the IP this way. It's unacceptable. Lourdes 08:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes Sir, I accept that I did not inform him. I forgot. Thanks that you informed him. And sir, these are some of the differences I have, done by that user.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Altoumulus (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Please double check that your links work, Altoumulus, as they appear to be broken at the time of my writing this (also, mobile diffs while allowed, are not ideal). As well, I think Lourdes is a Mam rather than a "Sir," though was unable to immediately confirm this (using singular they, though, when unsure, is a good habit in general). El_C 09:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The links used a pipe rather than a space to separate the URL from the number, they should work now.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@El C Oh, I am really sorry. I apologise for that. I did not know that rule. From now on, I will follow it. And El C, please recheck the links of the edit differences I sent above. I checked those links twice, as you said, and all of them are now working, thanks to @ActivelyDisinterested. And I have added another edit difference link I had. Please check that too, given below. Thanks.

7 (Here in 7, the anonymous user removed content that was correct and that even adhered to Wikipedia's guidelines.) Altoumulus (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh mobile diffs, the colours hurt. :( Erm, anyway, so their talk page does have many warnings about airports, even omitting your 4. That said, they do seem to provide reasoning for their changes. I'm not sure if they're sound reasoning, but those do exist. Also, Altoumulus, what do you mean by "an unauthorised user"? El_C 14:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@El C, I accept that there are reasonings provided by them for their edits. However, they are actually not, when they reverted valid edits that adhered to Wikipedia's guidelines. (please see that I am not judging, just giving my opinion; the final decision, as far as I know, is to be taken by administrators.) And, by "an unauthorised user", I meant that the user does not have an account and is not an authorised user, they are an anonymous user on Wikipedia and continuously reverted edits, even after being told to them by multiple users multiple times to refrain themselves from making further such edits from their side. I have written "reverted this edit by an unauthorised user" on many articles against anonymous users after finding their edits unconstructive. If by doing this I made a mistake, I apologise for it and I assure that I will not do it again. Thanks. Altoumulus (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a mistake, Altoumulus, please don't do that again. You can't take it upon yourself to decide on user authorization or lack thereof (doubly so for content opponents). Unless formal restrictions are set, all users, be they IPs or named accounts are deemed equal (i.e. an argument standing on its own merits, per se.). Anyway, that IP seem to be taking issue with the reliability of some of the sources, which I'm personally uncertain about. You may wish to consult the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on some of those, so at least we (or at least, I) could get a sense if that IP is for real or not. El_C 17:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Minor block

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

---

Please block Special:Contributions/77.99.96.62 for disruptive editing. They have been asked several times not to add capital letters to the middle of sentences, but they are still doing it[86]. Unfortunately, I see no other way of getting their attention. Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 31h Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

AssociateAffiliate's sig

AssociateAffiliate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uses as a sig [[User:AssociateAffiliate|StickyWicket]] ([[User talk:AssociateAffiliate|talk]]), which renders as StickyWicket (talk).

Examples of usage, going back to 2018: [87], [88], [89] [90], [91], [92]

This does not display the username (or any approximation thereof), contrary to WP:CUSTOMSIG/P: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. The disparity causes timewasting confusion for other editors.

AssociateAffiliate was notified[93] of the problem on 4 June by Toddst1. I followed up on 21 June with the same complaint.[94]: see discussion at User_talk:AssociateAffiliate#WP:SIGPROB (permalink), where AssociateAffiliate repeatedly refuses to fix the sig. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

In 10 years, only these two editors seem to have had a problem or been confused. Note how both are not acting within the realms of WP:AGF, having both only raised this 'concern' after 1). Creating an inappropriate deletion rationale, for which they were questioned on and refused to acknowledge their mistake and took it upon themselves to be the ICC appointed authority on cricket match status, and 2). Having removed Category:Irish cricketers from hundreds of Irish cricketers without consulting WP:CRIC or creating a WP:RFC, and was asked to stop doing so, but has gone rogue and resorted to WP:PERSONALATTACK on the cricket project talk page (insinuating I am a liar) and taken WP:OWNERSHIP of Ireland-related biographies. Both instances of signature 'concern' are simply retaliatory and WP:POINT. StickyWicket (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I was confused by the sig at an AFD discussion which is why I asked the AssociateAffiliate to change their sig when I also opened the discussion above that as well. It seems AssociateAffiliate has a WP:STICK issue. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

But apparently accusing other editors of lying [95] [96] or denial of reality [97] [98], [99], isn't a problem?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

When someone repeatedly posts the same simple, demonstrable falsehoods, how do you describe that conduct? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

So could you maybe change your signature to display something to do with your actual username? As far as I know we've never interacted, and it would be a pain to get your actual account name while I'm editing from a mobile device. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I could, but everyone knows me as StickyWicket who I regularly interact with, and my username is redundant now. Originally, I edited articles about Associate and Affiliate cricket, but Affiliates no longer exist (becoming Associates) and I don't really spend much time editing Associate cricket articles. So my old username makes little sense. StickyWicket (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Your sig needs to be clear to all editors, not just those with whom you regularly interact. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Then you can request a change in username (see WP:UNC). Until it is changed, however, your signature should display your actual username per WP:SIGPROB. — Czello ^(music) 14:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have requested a rename, thanks for the link. StickyWicket (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My username makes no sense at all, so I don't think that's an issue. You can include "StickyWicket" in your signature, and just add your actual username. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have been asked at least once previously on your talkpage here. Given that three different users have now asked you, and the text of WP:CUSTOMSIG/P is clear, it seems as though the easiest solution would be to modify your sig as you have been asked. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I did not remove Category:Irish cricketers from hundreds of Irish cricketers.

As AssociateAffiliate well knows, I diffused that category to the subcats of Category:Irish cricketers by county, which is routine category maintenance per WP:SUBCAT.

My unpleasant experience of the resulting discussions with AssociateAffiliate over the last 24 hours has been they have shown almost no aptitude for distinguishing between actual reality and their own wishes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's stick to the signature issue, rather than meandering into the weeds of Celtic cricketer categorization. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC) Finally, someone actually signs a collapsed or hatted text! You, sir, are a hero. El_C 15:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree and I'd say that's remarkably well-stated. There's only one perspective with that editor which may be why they've been previously blocked for aggressive battleground attitude which seems evident here. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) So according to you, first-class cricket didn't exist before 1894? Even though the inaugural first-class match was in 1772? So who's perspective is that? The ACS, or Toddst1 from Wikipedia? One is an authority on cricket match classification and the other is a Wikipedia editor from the US. StickyWicket (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC) That's nothing at all to do with your misleading sig. Your case is not in any way assisted by slinging unrelated muck at editors who simply ask you to fix your sig, so that it complies with WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Even if @Toddst1 was a thicko monster (which they ain't), your sig is still broken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

AA, we're good friends and you know that, in all honesty I'd always wanted to ask you to do the same just to remove the confusion. It's not really that big an issue. I don't remember the last time I even called you by your signature name! ;) Just refer to yourself in real life using as many four-syllable words beginning with A and you'll sound like a member of the nobility! Then buy as many letters before and after your name as possible. Isn't that how we all progress through the strata of society? I'd always assumed the answer was, "This is how I would prefer to be named on the project". Nothing, really, will change. Not to make any judgments, but I'm sure there are names you've been called in your life that you wouldn't want to share with anyone! Bobo. 17:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has covered themselves in glory here. AA needs to comply with policy whether not they like the people who pointed it out. Toddst1 unnecessarily raised the temperature by tone-policing a week-old comment, and dropping the sig complaint only a few hours after the tone-policing was a good way to ensure an unfavorable reception. (Seriously, did you really expect that would go over well?) As for BHG, you really need to stop accusing other editors of lying. Find a way to argue the point, not the person. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that a rename has taken place. That should resolve this filing, although I maintain my distaste for how this was addressed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not resolved - the user was renamed to a different spelling than what they've been signing as (there's an extra "e"). This misspelling was at their request, not an error introduced by the renamer. My AFGometer is strained to the breaking point; it's really, really hard not to see this as a deliberate provocation. —Cryptic 02:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Does a signature have to match the username letter-for-letter? If so, that should be stipulated more clearly in the guideline. The relevant passage simply states that A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. I don't really see a constructive benefit to not having them match, but I'm wary of enforcing the rule beyond what it says. And if the intent of the rule was to require a perfect match, why wouldn't that be explicity stated? It just seems like the wording is designed to leave some wiggle room for whatever reason. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Lepricavark, what I actually wrote[100] was either you lieing or you are incapable of checking very simple facts before you write.

This was in response to an editor who was disrupting a discussion by repeatedly posting assertions which are demonstrably false as a point of fact. I think it is a very great pity that your make no reproach to the editor who continued to make false assertions after being reputedly shown their falsity, and that you choose instead to rebuke the editor who challenged them. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

So it's either an accusation of lying (the sort of thing that led to your desysop) or a clear personal attack. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, you empress no concern whatsoever that an editor massively disrupted a discussion by repeatedly posting falsehoods. Boggling. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I really don't know if AA/SW is actually guilty of making false assertions, but what I do know is that you have a history of making these sorts of accusations, so much so that three years ago ArbCom passed a unanimous finding of fact stating that you repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including stating that editors are either liars or lying [101]. This is a recurrence of the sort of behavior that led to your desysop. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, well! Another fine old mess on Pseudopedia involving at least three of the usual suspects (they know who they are). Surely the excellent encyclopaedic work done by AA (now SW) and the likes of Bobo and Lepricavark over many years is what the usual suspects should be talking about? No, they can only descend into their usual pedantic rulesw***ing and make an issue of something no sensible person would ever have an interest in. No wonder so many good editors have abandoned this site and the whole thing is falling apart. What a shambles! Oh, yes, of course, one of the "experts" will promptly delete this post because criticism of the site is verboten. 2.99.208.127 (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Bob3458

Hi, I have just been noticing that User:Bob3458 has been disruptively adding overpopulated and redundant categories, such as Category:American film directors, to various pages, and reverting them whenever they are rightfully removed. I am concerned about his behavior, and wonder if he should be blocked or not if he continues this disruptive behavior. Thank you. 2001:569:507E:FB00:A03F:CA05:F080:E5A1 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide examples of pages that were inappropriately added to these categories? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clint_Eastwood&diff=prev&oldid=1161214386, a user already removed the Category:American film directors from Clint Eastwood, but he just restored it without justification. 2001:569:507E:FB00:A03F:CA05:F080:E5A1 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I see now. Clint Eastwood is already in the Category:Film directors from San Francisco subcategory of Category:American film directors. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

So what do we do about User:Bob3458 now? I'm not too sure if he should be blocked, but at the same time, I'm afraid he won't stop his disruptive behavior. 2001:569:507E:FB00:A03F:CA05:F080:E5A1 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I will say in my defence, I wasn’t aware of over categorisation but if it is a problem I will stop Bob3458 (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. 2001:569:507E:FB00:A03F:CA05:F080:E5A1 (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My intentions weren’t nefarious, but it seems some users thought it was so I can only apologise. Bob3458 (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

While you're at it, you should probably remove those redundant categories from the pages you added them to. 2001:569:507E:FB00:A03F:CA05:F080:E5A1 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You said it wasn't your intention to overcategorize, but I saw your recent contributions, and based on them, it shows your unwillingness to stop. 2001:569:507E:FB00:A03F:CA05:F080:E5A1 (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I just hope that Bob3458 sticks to his word and stops his disruptive behavior, but his recent contributions show otherwise. I am really considering whether or not he should be blocked. 2001:569:507E:FB00:A03F:CA05:F080:E5A1 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban

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

---

I would like my topic ban removed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#Barbara_(WVS)'s_editing_of_medical_and_anatomy_articles This ban includes all medical and anatomy articles. Also, I was banned from sexuality articles. I believe that I can do a good job to help the encyclopedia to grow. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 17:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS) two points: 1) this belongs at WP:AN, not here at WP:ANI. 2) when requesting the lifting of a topic ban, it's always a good idea to describe the types of constructive edits you want make to articles in the topic you were banned from; those !voting are more likely to agree that your topic ban is no longer necessary. Regards, Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 17:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User 2A02:2F0B:8A03:1000:C830:C153:7AE0:54BC

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

---

This IP keeps spamming this message first on pages, then on his talkpage after being blocked, would recommend revoking TPA or at least a stern warning

𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Would this go to WP:AIV? Professor Penguino (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Jacquesparker0 and User:Nofoolie

I am disappointed whist reviewing and accepting a draft by Jacquesparker0 that I have to bring notice to ANI in regards to incivility by Nofoolie. On 19th June 2022, Jacquesparker0 had a draft for Graham Baldwin accepted and on 29th July self-accepted a draft for Ian Haworth. Only (just over) 3 months ago, Nofoolie comes along on Jacques talk page requesting information in regards to a potential COI, the discussion being here. Jacques, as part of this discussion asked Nofoolie in what way they thought that Jacques had a COI which Nofoolie all but avoided answering and just asked more questions of Jacques, which to their credit, was answered in full. Towards the end of the thread, Jacques again asked Nofoolie for 'evidence do you have that I have a CoI' to which Nofoolie replied, again totally avoiding Jacques requests 'You are being avoidant; have refused to answer the questions and I am taking this further', a comment with ZERO teeth as no actions were taken by NoFoolie, no WP:COIN thread was opened, nothing.

Fast forward to a few days ago, 17th June 2023, Nofoolie has taken it upon themselves to totally cut down the Graham Baldwin article and also remove a good chunk of Ian Haworth. At this point I believe Nofoolie to be WP:HOUNDING, not being WP:NICE in their replies and actions (or lack thereof) and not Assuming Good Faith towards Jacques who has put in some excellent article creation work and absolutely has a WP:CLUE

This is not the first time that Nofoolie has made empty threats of escalation after this warning from Nick on 19th April 2022.

I would like Nofoolie to explain themselves as to how they came to the conclusion that Jacquesparker0 had a COI, and how they came to decide that the sources were 'Unreliable' on the Graham Baldwin article

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 23:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you Rich_Smith. I am sure there are things here that I don't see, about content and connections, but what I can see is that this, "As of June 2023 Catalyst's own website fails to state Baldwin's qualifications or association to any therapeutic professional body's code-of-ethics", is completely unacceptable, it's editorial commentary, it's not neutral or backed by secondary sources. I'm looking at those and other edits, and by the time it's done Nofoolie might end up with a partial or full block. At the very least, Nofoolie, your line of questioning is not acceptable--even if the other editor has a conflict of interest, which they deny. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• I restored Graham Baldwin. I reverted the editor on Ian Haworth, though that article needs serious pruning. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sure Jacquesparker0 will have zero problems with cleaning up the WP:REFBOMB - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the links you provided... wow. Just wow. Nofoolie better have a pretty good explanation for this behavior. He has completely disregarded WP:AGF, and WP:CIVILITY. While I understand his criticism of Jacque's citation, him insisting there must be a CoI, and the way he acted was unacceptable. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)