Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TomStar81 (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 21 March 2024 (→WP:NOTHERE Promotional advocacy regarding Nancy D. Erbe: copyvio?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    NoonIcarus and "Failed verification"

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

    Apologies in advance for the wall of text, but this is mainly due to having to outline and explain a list of concerning edits. NoonIcarus has inaccurately cited "failed verification" in an apparent effort to remove information from the project. This was addressed before by Mbinebri in the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article talk page, who said "In your recent edits, you removed info again, claiming failed verification because you couldn't access the two cited articles. I think this was inappropriate". More recently, I have noticed NoonIcarus performing this similar edit (and engaging in an edit war) to remove information about leftists being tortured during a former Venezuelan government, arguing that this was not presented in sources. Well, this information is from the New York Amsterdam News article cited, where the paper writes "Posada worked as an official in Venezuela's DISIP ... where he participated in the torture of left-wing activists". So, instead of NoonIcarus actually not having access to information to "verify" source content, it appears that they are intentionally ignoring source content in order to maintain a particular POV on the project.

    After noticing this repetitive behavior, I reviewed NoonIcarus' similar "failed verification" edits, recognizing inconsistencies:

    This is just a small review of the last four months of editing by NoonIcarus, so again (see here about the previous inappropriate use of "stable version"), who knows how much they have removed using the "failed verification" method this time. Overall, NoonIcarus' editing behavior makes it clear that they are removing information not based on "failed verification", but for other reasons; most likely related to seeing this information as a bad POV about the Venezuelan opposition. This is further evidence to add to the previous concerns about NoonIcarus not being here to build an encyclopedia. WMrapids (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. These "failed verification" lies (which is what these are) are so pervasive that unless NoonIcarus has a very good explanation for all of these, I'd go ahead with a site ban. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these edits are recent or recent-ish (2024), and it's apparent from his userpage that NoonIcarus speaks Spanish. NoonIcarus isn't an inexperienced editor. I do find NoonIcarus' position defensible on the 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum; I could imagine that if I saw commentary I found suspicious that was sourced to a dead link, I might tag it with {{fv}}. I also think he's got an arguable case on Guarimba 3 because "shaking down" doesn't necessarily mean "robbing". On the other matters I fully side with WMrapids.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @S Marshall: There was a URL issue,[1][2] though as I said, the articles were still easily accessible on Google. WMrapids (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can see your side of it. I just think it's only fair to note that it was a contentious claim sourced to a dead link.—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the correct solution is to use {{dead link}} for the link not working, and also {{Verify source}} if you have doubts and cannot check the source due to the dead link. Failed verification implies that you checked the source and could not find the claim rather than you could not view the source. Note that the documentation for the failed verification template specifically says you should use dead link instead when the website is unreachable. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I didn't see anything in the documentation that I saw that says it's okay to use both the dead link and verify source template, I'd argue it's perfectly fine since they describe two related but separate issues. One is that the link is dead, so someone needs to either fix it in some way. E.g. they could find an archival link. Or alternatively replace it with a working source. Or in some cases if the source doesn't need a link ensure that there is sufficient info in the citation and possibly remove the link. The second issue is that an editor has doubts over the content but couldn't access the source to confirm it one way or the other. So wants someone who does have access to the source to verify it, perhaps providing a quote on the talk page to help or something. This isn't so different from a book or journal the editor doesn't have access to or a paywalled website, except here the problem is a dead link so fixing the dead link and confirming it verifies should be enough. If for whatever reason e.g. an editor gnoming a lot of related dead links doesn't have time to check, they're perfectly fine fixing the dead link, removing the dead link template and leaving the verify source for someone else to deal with perhaps even the editor who added it in the first place when they find the link was fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using {{dead link}} is the correct option, but Template:Failed verification/doc only mentioned that in the body. I've made a slight change to reflect that in the lede of the documentation. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue with said sources is that their format ([3]) did not show how they were accessed in the first place. There weren't archive links, archive dates or quotes, and if they had been truly accessed just a few days ago they should have been available when I did. I want to leave clear that I oppose removing links for being dead as the only reason, and I have rescued several of these references when I have found the archives. I was unaware about {{Verify source}}, and it looks like an useful tag that I will probably use in the future. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that {{Verify source}} should only be used only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information yourself if you are unable to find it, and still have doubts about its authenticity. You might also be interested in WP:IABOT, which can often repair dead links. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Wordsmith: Not trying to bludgeon here, but "good faith" tagging has been a consistent issue for NoonIcarus as well.(1,2,3) @Boynamedsue: even said "All of the in text tags here lacked justification. I am very concerned about Noonicarus… This is the diametric opposite of our actual policy". Just wanted to share this to provide more context. WMrapids (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Response here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thing. Thank you kindly, --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Carlos Vecchio: The cited book says "Mobil de Venezuela" and in the previous paragraph it suggests that the date was July 1998. Wikipedia's ExxonMobil article says Exxon merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil in November 1999. So I think NoonIcarus was correct, the Wikipedia claim that BLP subject Carlos Vecchio worked for ExxonMobil was poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is splitting hairs. Looking at History of ExxonMobil, we do not simply say "Mobil" when discussing the company historically. If we want to be super specific, "Mobil de Venezuela" could have been edited as a redirect (like Mobil de Venezuela), but this still doesn't warrant NoonIcarus' removal of the information entirely. WMrapids (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact Mr Vecchio did work for ExxonMobil a few years later, I was thrown off by your quoting of a passage that is not about that. Although I think the citing could have been more specific I was wrong to say it's poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne, The Wordsmith, and Peter Gulutzan: I'm appreciative of you all clarifying the appropriate usage of templates and the source content regarding Mobil (ExxonMobil). But, Mbinebri already warned NoonIcarus about inappropriately using "failed verification", S Marshall notes that NoonIcarus has the experience to have known better and JCW555 suggests a "site ban" since the user appears to be a deliberately removing unwanted information. We have been dealing with NoonIcarus' inappropriate edits for some time now (block deletions and canvassing, edit warring against consensus, activist/battleground edits). So, do any of you have suggestions on how to remedy NoonIcarus' gaming behavior that has continued (especially on Venezuelan topics) for years now? I previously suggested a topic ban, which is less severe than a full "site ban".--WMrapids (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pre-emptively, I would definitely support a TBAN, because I have watched NoonIcarus's behaviour for a long time, and it is absolutely unacceptable. To be honest, I am suprised they haven't recieved a ban or block of any sort regarding this issue. I fear that they might be one of the unblockables, and that would be a great shame. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JML1148 The reason this issue is getting little attention from admins is because of how verbose all of the participants are and how this dispute is outside of the knowledge of most people in the west, which is the English Wikipedia's main editor base. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally get the the thing regarding the conduct of the participants. I don't really think the issue is with it being outside the knowledge of most editors, though - there's been a few RfCs with widespread participation including the dispute between NoonIcarus and WMRapids. I definitely think a large number of administrators know about the dispute and the poor conduct involved, but aren't getting involved. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't remember where we knew each other from, until I found the request for comment RfC: VENRS, which WMrapids started. If your understanding about my experience as an editor comes mostly from WMrapids, I kindly ask if you have a chance to take a look at the ANI own complaints against WMrapids below. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Currently writing a response to the accusations. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If I understand this correctly, the allegation is that a user should be blocked for adding "failed verification" tags where other tags are appropriate? Isn't that a sledgehammer/nut response? As people have already shown the first two e examples aren't straightforward, I'm looking at the third example, the Frankfurter Zeitung source on Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies. The tagged reference is as follows: "Generation 2007". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 1 April 2019. There is no link, so impossible for someone to verify without finding the 1 April 2019 edition of FAZ, something I couldn't manage to do easily. It looks like the complainant here has access to the text, as they quote it on this page, so why not just add a hyperlink, or at least give the full quotation and maybe a page number, and remove the tag? Maybe "failed verification" is the wrong tag, but surely the ref doesn't meet our standards of verification and therefore Noonicarus was correct to tag it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Now I'm looking at the fourth example, Venezuelan opposition. Here the sources were removed rather than tagged. All of the removed sources are problematic from a verification point of view: the same FAZ ref without a link, a Monde Diplo article that is paywalled but which in another edit Noonicarus says doesn't mention Venezuela, and Stratfor links which are dead. So it would have been right to tag it. The removal was part of what seems to be quite a lot of back and forth editing with the complainant here inserting very POV material and Noonicarus hastily removing it. Would have been better for both editors to slow down and talk it out, but this is not an example of one user deviously using "failed verification" as framed in the complaint. The fifth example, Guarimba, is a bit like the third: the citation to Oxford Analytica doesn't have a hyperlink so is impossible to verify. The quote is too short to confirm it supports the text. Noonicarus tags it instead of removing it. It should be tagged in some way as it does indeed need more to verify it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) With the sixth example, also from Guarimba, I agree with WMrapids that on the face of it this should not have been removed. Noonicarus' edit summary is "Failed verification. Care should be also be taken, since unreliable government sources are frequently used, such as Venezolana de Televisión and Correo del Orinoco. It's clear that this is not the best source" which doesn't seem to match the content removed, suggesting it may have been a mistake, and WMRapids was right to revert it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) The seventh example, same WP article, was also a bad edit. Possibly Noonicarus searched the source without noticing the paywall half way down but the full article[4] does include the "shakedown" passage. I'd say the removed content was a rather POV rendering of the material, so this may have provoked this excessive response. So far I agree with WMRapids in two out of seven examples. There doesn't seem to be the malignant pattern the complaint implies. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Last one, on the protests. It's true the second source, a dead link, contained text about children, so flagging as need verification or checking the archive would have been better than removal. However, the actual claim in the WP article text doesn't correspond to the sources as comments attributed to Maduro (including about children) weren't made by Maduro. Again, there was bad POV material to which Noonicarus overreacted. So three out of eight edits raised here are problematic, but not in a way that suggests a need to sanctions. Is there an 1RR rule on Venezuela articles? That might be a better solution, to calm down the editing in general. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobfrombrockley: I think you might be missing some of the context here. Although whether or not this specific incident warrants sanctions is debatable, according to your analysis, NoonIcarus has a history of POV pushing, incivility and assuming ownership of articles. There is a very long and detailed comment that WMRapids left on a previous ANI incident, found here. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained in my own response to the comment, the problem is that there hasn't been much pushing from my part, but rather from WMrapids. They have aggresively introduced POV in several articles for months now: National_Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services, Venezuelan opposition, Guarimba, 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2019 Venezuelan blackouts, 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2013 Venezuelan municipal elections. Most, if not all, of the recent disputes with WMrapids have resulted from me challenging the POV content and WMrapids' reluctance to change it. As of article ownership, it's enough to point out to articles such as Operation Gideon (2020), Rupununi uprising and Guarimba to show how difficult it has been to make any changes different from the editor's preferred version. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you JML1148. I wasn't aware of that context. Was WMRapids' last complaint supported by the community? It seems to me that WMRapids engages in exactly the same sort of behaviour that NoonIcarus is accused of in these same contentious topic areas, and if NoonIcarus has been a bit quick on the trigger with tagging WMRapids content (which often tends to POV), WMRapids is quick to revert NoonIcarus' edits without establishing consensus. Both of them do engage in discussion on talk pages, but often it is hard to get consensus due to a lack of un-involved editors. I don't think this is a disciplinary matter, and if it is then similar sanctions should apply to WMRapids. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prequel to some of the tagging mentioned in the allegation above appears to be a request to the OP for info on the sourcing which was responded to rather brusquely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum#Stratfor BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobfrombrockley: It looks brusque and rude, but it actually isn't. OP pointed to dead links asking "How did you get the information?" WMRapids replied on 06:36, 12 March 2024 that the links came from Google and corrected the deadlinks four hours later (10:45, 12 March 2024) saying, "No idea how this happened. Links should be fixed." Six hours after the links were corrected (16:32, 12 March 2024), instead of thanking WMRapids for correcting them, OP said, "Rude. It's your responsibility to ensure the verifiability of the content." WMRapids already had, so if anyone was rude, it was NoonIcarus, not WMRapids. One wonders if OP even made a minimal effort to correct the links.
    I will give WMRapids the thanks at that discussion that s/he deserved and so the context is clearer for anyone who reads the short back and forth.--David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My message showing how the previous links gave no results in Web Archive should hint enough that I did try to fix the links. WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI. I don't believe that is true. WMRapids fixed the links on 10:45, 12 March 2024 shortly after ActivelyDisinterested explained the link problem on 09:08, 12 March 2024. (Thanks.) From my review of your contributions here at AN/I, your first comment here was 09:58, 13 March 2024--a day after the links were corrected. Please provide a diff showing where you pointed this out at this ANI before WMrapids corrected the link on 10:45, 12 March 2024. Providing a false timeline does not help your case.--David Tornheim (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Tornheim: You're right. It was after ActivelyDisinterested told me that I thanked them and fixed the links about ten minutes later. WMrapids (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm striking that specific part since you're correct. My main point stands, though: WMrapids provided this example to falsely accuse me of "ignoring the content", when I showed in my comment that I tried accessing the references and that Web Archive did not provide any results. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobfrombrockley: As I said in the opening of this discussion, Mbinebri already warned NoonIcarus that a "failed verification" tag is inappropriate if the user didn't have access to the source. A source does not need a link to be included. Failed verification means that someone had read the source and the content did not match the source. So, no, many of the tags and edit summaries were not "correct" as you suggest and NoonIcarus was deliberately removing information without properly verifying it.
    I know that you two have worked pretty closely together on removing some info from United States involvement in regime change. This is where NoonIcarus and I have had a conflict (their frequent removals), but I reached out to them in an effort to avoid edit warring, suggesting that we add to articles and discuss instead of constant removals. This worked for but a moment until they reverted back to edit warring. It crossed the line when they inappropriately began removing information citing "failed verification", and now we are here. WMrapids (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By "worked together closely", I think you mean that we have at times agreed on what the content should look like and you've disagreed. On that page, you secured consensus for some of your preferred edits and not for others. It seems to me that you both engage properly in talk pages and I was surprised to see you escalate this to an incident for admins. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here, particularly since WMrapids never told me about the misuse of "failed verification" or claimed that I wasn't accessing the references. While I have been frustrated by slow progress, I felt that the conflict had escaled down until now. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1RR is a solution that has been proposed previously and I have tried to abide by. It wouldn't solve all of the current issues, but it is not currently implemented and it probably would be a good first step. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How long are admins going to let this go? It has been obvious for some time that Noonicarus can not edit competently on Latin American political articles and they need to be topic-banned at the very least.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another few days. The OP has had time to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint. We give their target the same courtesy.—S Marshall T/C 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WMrapids and source misinterpretation

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

    TL;DR: WMrapids accuses me of "ignoring source content" but omits that I access said content and try to help with verifiability, such as by asking for quotes, which the editor never provided until now. WMrapids has a history of source misinterpretation that needs to be checked.
    I was hoping that with this exchange and more interaction in talk pages there would be less conflict but alas, we find ourselves here again. I have already made several complaints about WMrapids' poor behavior in the past, including but not limited to edit warring, blanking and hounding (ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS, ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking), ANI#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids). For the sake of brevity I will focus in the recent issues.
    WMrapids has a history of reference misinterpretation, original research and poor sourcing, sometimes leading to BLP violations (eg: WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda and Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis#Lancet editorial misrepresented), not to mention lack of attribution or personal interpretation, as with the "shaking down" example. Controversial or fringe claims such as a congressman leading an auto theft gang, the CIA infiltration of Venezuelan intelligence services or the opposition involvement in the 2019 blackouts don't help either. The editor continues accusing me of bias, but with them casting doubts about Venezuelan torture victims testimonies [5][6][7][8][9][10] and own removal of content[11][12][13] shows that the editor does not hold all of the information to the same standard depending on its point of view. Another example of this is how they question the Organization of American States as a source in the Guarimba article ([14]), but doesn't have to have an issue with using it at the Ayacucho and Juliaca massacres articles (1, 2). To this date no explanation has been provided for this.
    When I say "failed verification" it doesn't mean that I wasn't able to access the source or that I was too lazy to try to. God knows I have. Web Archive, Google Books, JSTOR, all the possible means available online if I don't happen to have an offline method to verify. Threads that include Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation, Talk:DISIP#Luis Posada Carriles, Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs and Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia show that I have accessed the references and that I am familiar with their content, if I had already not said it at the edit summaries.
    WMrapids often doesn't include URLs, pages, quotes or other means to help with verifiability for bibliographical sources, even when they are easily accesible (just as BobFromBrockley as noted above), and have continued to do so even when other users that asked for them to be included. The responsability to ensure the verifiability of the information lies on the user that adds it, but the user shifts this burden onto other editors, best exemplified by one of the last responses to the source requests: "Google"[15]. Talk pages such as Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor are witness that I have tried asking about the original quotes or learning more about the content in question, even when I haven't found it after accessing the source, and I often choose rewording or fixing the references instead of removal when I have the opportunity: [16][17][18][19][20].
    I am very dissapointed that this is the first time that any of these quotes are brought up: not in its references, not in the talk pages, but to make a case against me, as they have with other editors that have challenged their edits, for requesting them in the first place. I don't want to speak on behalf of Mbinebri, but I believe that our exchange was a lot more open and amicable at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt#Recent edits... with more to go(?) than the ones that I've had with WMrapids when I have challenged the content.
    Responses to WMrapids accusations
    • The text's original source about Luis Posada Carriles (Bardach, Ann Louise (2002). Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana. Random House. pp. 184–186. ISBN 978-0-375-50489-1.), which describes the group saying [he] immediately went to war against the leftist guerrilla movements supported by Castro in Venezuela. It directly contradicts the description of he participated in the torture of left-wing activists.
    • Searching "Exxon" in Google Books gives back page 56, whose preview doesn't mention anything about Qatar or Vecchio being a tax manager. Looking online, the main websites that have this information are outlets with a heinous reliability record, such as Deprecated The Grayzone (RSP entry) [21] and Deprecated Telesur (RSP entry) [22], as well as Venezuelan state outlets. This was added to the article just months after these articles were published:[23]. Modifying the URL solves this issue.
    • See Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor for the CANVAS content. The provided links were broken, Web Archive [24][25] didn't throw any results, and I asked for the specific quote. Nothing misleading here, the provided reference did not reflect the added content. I'm glad this has been fixed now.
    • The information about the alleged relations between the Venezuelan opposition, Otpor! and CANVAS comes from Wikileaks' "Global Intelligence Files". This is even mentioned by a source that WMrapids provided:Wikileaks Docs Expose Famed Serbian Activist’s Ties to ‘Shadow CIA’. Stratfor links were broken (see above) and Le Monde diplomatique didn't mention Venezuela, something I also asked at Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs. Generally unreliable WikiLeaks (RSP entry) is an unreliable source per WP:RS/PS.
    • See S Marshall's comment regarding "shaking down". I'm not the only person that does not think that "extortion" is the same as "robbing"
    • If I recall correctly, I removed the information about children because the sentence talked specifically about evacuation. Yahoo's source was also dead, but can be accessed through Archive and says: Several people, including a young girl, have been rescued from Venezuela's Housing Ministry after it was set on fire by anti-government protesters.[26] If I had removed content simply because the links are dead and I didn't bother trying accessing them, as WMrapids claims, I would have deleted the whole statement, which is clearly not the case.

    The only exceptions that I can see are Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's and Oxford Analytica's sources; in both cases I tagged the sentences accordingly and did not remove the content. I'm finding out about {{verify source}} due to this thread, and I will probably use in the future in this context. As of López Maya's source, I simply did not find the original source. It is a 25 pages document and WMrapids usually doesn't provide quotes for the references, as I mentioned above.

    I cannot stress how exhausted I am of this. It will be almost a year since this pattern has started since WMrapids started editing in Venezuelan topics. I don't know what to ask anymore besides for the community to make up their position based on this information and to propose a solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I don't want to delve too much into the POV pushing accusations to not make the thread longer than it already is, and that it is neither the main topic at hand nor diffs have been provided to justify them, but in turn I want to provide a few in response:[27][28][29]. I don't care about any specific point of view, just about the quality of the sourcing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that you are attempting to boomerang this back onto me, as @JML1148: mentioned this "unblockable" behavior, I will try to provide a short response.
    Yes, I may forget to include specific quotes and page numbers on occasion, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that you inaccurately designated content as "failed verification" and removed it inappropriately.
    You also failed to justify any removal based on "failed verification":
    1. The Posada information was based on the newspaper article, not the book.
    2. You're attempting to deflect the information on Vecchio to Grayzone (who you personally and understandably have a beef with) instead of actually verifying the source itself.
    3. We can understand that this was an accident, yet this could have been easily verifiable doing an internet search for the article title.
    4. Regarding CANVAS, you inappropriately said the information was from Wikileaks when this was not the case.
    5. The "shakedown" appears up for debate, though looking at extortion, it seems like protesters forcing disapproving people to give them belongs seems like a robbery to me.
    6. The information about children was removed, period. You could have looked at the archived link to El Universal.
    7. Finally, you use the excuse of not being knowledgeable of "verify source", which seems like a cop out for a ten-year Wikipedia user.
    So, it still is clear to me that you are deflecting blame and making excuses for your inappropriate behavior on the Project instead of listening to the years of warnings from other users. I admit to not being a perfect user and you yourself have clarified things for me, but I never went as far as being dishonesty. WMrapids (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote a response towards your accusations. Nothing more, nothing less. You're accusing me of deliberately ignoring the content in the references, and the diffs I provide show this is clearly false. Your lack of URLs, pages and quotes has been the norm, not the exception.
    If we want to talk about dishonesty, it's probably best to ask: if for weeks I had asked for quotes or on what the changes were based (Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation, Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles, Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs, Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia and Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor), why is it only now that you're providing them for the first time? You once said it is becoming exhausting that we are arguing over the definition of a shake down now[30]. Do you find these questions annoying? That is something different and that you can say, but saying that I'm ignoring source content is deceptive.
    By providing the sources only now, it shows how easily and accessible it is for you, but here it looks not as an attempt to help with the content verifiability or address my behavior, but rather to sanction me. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And talking about the {{verify source}} tag, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. One thing is tagging, another thing is contesting and removing. I only said that I'll be looking using it more in the future. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban from Latin American political articles

    Support topic ban: After reviewing the response from NoonIcarus, it appears that they will continue to deflect their misbehavior onto others and have not learned from the years of warnings they have encountered. Again, while I am admittedly not a perfect user myself, it does not justify their dishonest editing, frequent edit warring and their battleground behavior in apparent acts of activism.--WMrapids (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • [Later] This is complicated and hard to resolve. There have been previous reports by both parties and they've often been archived without result. That shouldn't happen again this time, and I've used {{DNAU}} to make sure it doesn't.
      Aside from the conflict of views about Venezuela, there's an ongoing issue that reduces to citing sources with sufficient precision. NoonIcarus expects citations to be rather precise, and he tags citations he sees as vague. WMrapids' citations are less precise, and he objects to NoonIcarus' insistence. From WMrapids' point of view, NoonIcarus looks like he's griefing; while from NoonIcarus' point of view, WMrapids is adding material that isn't properly sourced. WMrapids expects NoonIcarus to fix imprecise citations when he finds them; while NoonIcarus wants to tag them for someone else to fix.
      I think part of what we need to do here is to define good sourcing practice and set expectations about how to deal with citations that have poor precision.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I want to clear this up now. My point of view is that others shouldn't have to clean up after citations. Now, I get it, my citations weren't exactly the most detailed, but this is something that I can and will improve upon (this also could have all been solved on my talk page if there was actually a sincere concern). The issue I and others have is that NoonIcarus disingenuously marked content as "failed verification" and removed it, with most of this content being controversial towards the Venezuelan opposition. This is a clear behavioral pattern that NoonIcarus has continuously participated in, which is the true issue before us. WMrapids (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have asked you countless times for content and sources when in doubt, and both SandyGeorgia and I have asked you to add links in your references previously. This is not a new issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If editor X adds citations that are hard to verify and Y editor tags them, I'm not sure it's clearcut which editor is expecting others to clean up afterwards. Tagging seems to me the right approach, so the community can improve it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I want to clarify that I don't mind fixing the references if I have the opportunity, it is something that I have done in the past: [31][32][33][34] I just think this should not be the norm, or at least that the editor can help improving the format if possible. Too much precision probably isn't needed either. Just an URL should work in most cases, as it usually does, but if one isn't available, at least a quote and page. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @S Marshall: Many thanks for the mediation, by the way. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on Latin American politics -- a wider TB to include politics in general might protect us from possible similar behavior in U.S. politics--especially those that might tangentially overlap with the interest this editor has in Latin American politics. I do think this ban should be extended to Spanish Wikipedia and WikiMedia files, but my understanding is that other languaged Wikipedia have their own judicial proceedings.
    I don't think a site ban is necessary, as I don't think the editor has shown much interest in anything else, and maybe if s/he works on other subject matter might eventually understand just how problematic the behavior has been.
    I agree with other editors that TL;DR is a real problem in this subject area. I think the reason for that has a lot to do with the fact that mainstream RS that is critical of United States involvement in regime change has been blacklisted on Wikipedia, by citing the mainstream U.S. sources that tend to parrot the U.S. State Department perspective (as I explain at WP:RS/N, here).
    I remember NoonIcarus's behavior under the former name Jamez42. In January 2020, s/he received a 1-year editing restriction for behavior like the above. After the editing restriction expired, at some point the behavior returned. I warned him/her on 2/9/24 about repeated reverts of the same material, and s/he immediately deleted it without archiving with the edit summary "A single revert does not warrant this warning. Stop this harassment." --David Tornheim (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would also be helpful if you could specific which critical mainstream RS sources you're referring to. In Deprecated The Grayzone's (RSP entry) request for comment, you supported that it be categorized either under option 1 or 2, and I supported its deprecation (a decision I wholy stand by, by the way). Grayzone's rant about the decision and their attack against editors, including myself, was one of the reasons why I requested a change for my username. The RfC was also opened three weeks before you filed your own ANI against me four years ago. I really hope this decision of mine is not part of the reason why you're supporting a topic ban. Best wishes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It's not because of a difference of opinion at a single RfC. It's the POV editing which has gone on for years, which I and numerous other editors have observed and expounded upon here and elsewhere: [35],[36], and [37]. If the warnings were heeded, we would not be here, and I would not be advocating for a topic ban.
    To give an example of this POV-editing, and what prompted this warning: NoonIcarus kept reverting to his/her preferred claim that the Presidency of Venezuela was disputed. This was no longer tenable after 30 December 2022, because "Venezuela's opposition national assembly voted...to remove interim President Juan Guaido [and] dissolve his government..." [38]
    When at least four editors (one me) tried to remove the claim that the Presidency was still disputed (after 30 December 2022), NoonIcarus reverted, and kept citing an obsolete RfC from 10 September 2021 and also despite this RfC closed 3 December 2021 that determined "There is a clear consensus that Juan Guaidó isn’t the interim president of Venezuela." (In the 3 December 2021 RfC, of the twelve !votes, NoonIcarus was one of only two editors claiming Guaido was still "interim president".) It wasn't until I filed this RfC on 9 February 2024 that the matter was settled. It is not surprising that of the eight !votes, NoonIcarus was alone in claiming the Presidency is disputed. I don't consider that cooperative editing and the ability to judge the WP:RS with WP:NPOV. It's more like ownership and advocacy for the opposition. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A RfC that I suggested myself, about a change that had been disputed by at least two other editors: [39][40][41]. It's simply not as you're painting it. As I said in the RfC itself, if the community is clear on the position, I don't have any issues with the outcome.
    I asked before you have been inactive for nearly four years, until WMrapids left a message in your talk page (User talk:David Tornheim#Operation Gideon (2020)). The actions you're describing are from 2020 and before (already dealt before in the specific ANI) and from this year, not a pattern that has continued over four years.
    With that being said, I wonder once again why WP:RS/N was mentioned here to begin with. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You already provided those exact same three diffs ([42] [43][44]) on the talk page here. My reply included this text from the WP:LEDE of the article: "The Venezuelan presidential crisis was a political crisis concerning the leadership and who holds the office remained disputed till 5 January 2023.” All three diffs are before 5 January 2023.
    The last two diffs ([45][46]) were from TEMPO156 (fka 25stargeneral) who reversed saying “Consensus on the Maduro and Venezuela pages that this can no longer be considered current.” You were already shown that those diffs do not support your insistence—which no one else shares—that the Presidency is still disputed. Yet, here you are showing those same three diffs again to defend your edit-warring (4-Oct-23, 11-Oct-23, 7-Feb-24, 8-Feb-24) post 5 January 2023 as acceptable. It’s more evidence of your inability to work collaboratively, listen to reasonable concerns, and objectively assess the RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:President of Venezuela#Should we stop claiming the status of the Venezuelan presidency is "disputed"?. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NoonIcarus: Do you really feel that an RfC from 2021 takes precedence over the changing circumstances described by the WP:RS that I mention above? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on Latin American politics Noonicarus' editing is, in large part, political activism. Noonicarus' is here purely to ensure that articles on Latin American topics have an anti-socialist bias in general, and an anti-Venezuelan-regime bias in particular. While these opinions are perfectly acceptable, in my view, their editing on this topic runs foul of WP:NOTHERE. All editors, including myself, have political biases, but I am 100% sure that Noonicarus views their contribution to wikipedia as part of the struggle against the Venezuelan regime.
    They have explicitly declared that they believe "mainstream news sources" to be superior to academic scholarship, which is the opposite to our actual policy. For example, they recently spent a long time arguing against the inclusion in the text of the term "massacre" (used by many academic sources) to describe the killing of thousands of civilians by Venezuelan security forces in 1989. Their justification was that some Venezuelan news sources do not use the term. They have also dedicated a massive amount of time to attempting to enforce WP:VENRS, which is an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all of your observations. Since resuming editing on 2/6/24, I have seen this troubling behavior in the articles you mention while it was happening (as well as back in 2019-2020), even if I did not comment on it.--David Tornheim (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Context here Talk:Caracazo#POV tag and here Talk:Caracazo#Sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban I have many South American election articles on my watchlist and I have regularly seen NoonIcarus making POV edits over a period of several years, mostly to Venezuelan articles, but occasionally to other articles where there is a prominent leftist candidate/party. This has often involved selectively removing information that is inconvenient to their POV with somewhat dubious reasons (which is the original complaint here). Frankly I'm amazed they have lasted this long on Wikipedia given their long history of POV-pushing. Number 57 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN per my previous comments. It's very clear NoonIcarus needs something to restrain their blatant NPOV editing. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN at the absolute minimum with the information provided by David Tornheim. There's no more rope here. – The Grid (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as target. WMrapids accused me of intentionally ignoring content. The diffs that I provided not only show my attention to the sources, but in many cases asking for even further information (1 2 3 4). These charges against editors that have contested their changes aren't new (1 2 3 4 5), and the archived ANI complaints show this has been a long standing and unanswered issue (1, 2, 3). WMrapids' bludgeoning has driven active participants from the Wikiproject Venezuela away (1, 2, 3, of which I'm apparently the last one remaining) and the community shouldn't forget either about the excessive RfCs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that exhausted unrelated contributors (1 2 3 4). A TBAN won't solve the underlying issues nor provide an answer to previous complaints. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Responding to your claims of being a target, it is ridiculous as it is plain to see in the responses above that multiple users have had issues with your editing behavior across the project. It appears that your edits have a POV bias towards maintaining the positive image of the Venezuelan government following the signing of the Puntofijo Pact (while I have seen a similar description occasionally in sources, you frequently describe it as the "democratic period"[47][48] or similar) and discounting human rights abuses performed by the "democratic" government ([49], [50], [51], [52]) while overtly promoting a negative image of the government following the Bolivarian Revolution. This is even more clear with your repeated dismissal of academic sources, minimizing them as "opinions" for the Puntofijo Pact article, something already mentioned above by @Boynamedsue:.
      Further, while reviewing your edits some more, I even found another "failed verification" edit from 2022 performed by you that was inaccurate; you removed "President Maduro denied the allegations, saying torture had not occurred in Venezuela since Hugo Chávez became president" when the Reuters article clearly states "MADURO DENIES TORTURE ... The president says torture ended in Venezuela with the arrival of President Hugo Chavez, his socialist predecessor and mentor, in 1999. 'Commander Chavez never gave the order to torture anyone. We came from that school of thought,' Maduro said." Such repetitive behavior of participating in (using the description of @JCW555:) "'failed verification' lies" over years raises questions of whether an even more severe ban from editing is justified.
      Regarding the further boomerang attempts, I learned from my mistakes with feedback from other users, which I have accepted, especially regarding RfCs (which were mainly opened due to stonewalling from NoonIcarus). As for other users not participating, Venezuelan politics are very contentious and are obviously exhausting to edit about (I feel it, trust me), so of course users will come and go. Other WikiProject Venezuela members are still clearly active and choose not to participate in the articles that you are interested in, which is their own decision, but if there were an issue with my behavior in particular, they could have raised concerns on my talk page or on this very noticeboard. So, exaggerating and saying "I'm apparently the last one remaining" shows how you view yourself as making some sort of last stand, which is further evidence that you are engaged in activist edits to right great wrongs and clearly demonstrates that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
      After seeing the further deflection, your continued editing behavior that has not improved over years of warnings (especially after the ANI raised by @David Tornheim: in 2020) and the additional "failed verification" edit mentioned above that occurred years ago raises the question; is a permanent ban for NoonIcarus more appropriate? WMrapids (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [53] ([54] and [55][56][57], see response above). --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that once again, the sheer volume of text we've produced deters uninvolved people from reading it, and I hope that any further contributions from involved people are both (1) absolutely necessary and (2) very succinct indeed.—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban I'm involved to the extent that I am a participant to an open AfD discussion involving both editors, otherwise, to the best of my memory, prior to that AfD, I had not edited articles related to Venezuelan politics. (Subsequent to participation in that AfD I made some edits to a US thinktank cited in the discussion). The key question here is whether there is a pattern of POV editing favourable to the Venezuelan opposition being masked by claims over source veracity. As the Venezuelan government seeks to deligitimise the opposition because of its so-called "foreigness" or so-called "terrorism", it is understandable that it will be contentious the extent to which the opposition is depicted as lacking endogeneity or engages in actions which may be deemed criminal. Nevertheless, with the evidence presented as it has been, the approriate response would not be to (a) throw accusations back at the filer and (b) to relitigate every edit, but rather to present evidence that one's editing is NPOV via a pattern of equal concern with the veracity of all sourcing in the subject area, not just the veractiy of sourcing which suits the editor's POV. Yet, the attempts to do this show a pattern of edits which reinforce negative aspects of the government or people associated with it and favourable aspects of the opposition. There is a consistent pattern of POV editing in the topic area. There does not appear to be any substantial reflection of a even a single mistake made or a point in time where the editor could have approached issues differently (reducing this to a "technical" issue of incorrect tagging avoids the core issue). FWIW, I think it is reasonable that the community draws VMRapids' attention to a lack of precision regarding their citations and a requirement for pinpoint referencing when possible (ie books, journal articles), especially given many elements of this are broadly wihtin a contentious topic area (post-1992 US politics). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Follow up from VPM

    Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps

    Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Rwelean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal

    Per the evidence I outlined at this VPM discussion (permanent diff), Rachel Helps, the Wikipedian-in-Residence at Brigham Young University and operator of the above two accounts, has for years engaged in extensive undisclosed WP:COI editing on Wikipedia in collaboration with her employees and professional colleagues. This misconduct falls well short of what is expected of any editor, let alone a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence, and as I have been informed that en.wp has no ability to revoke said position, I propose that Rachel Helps be topic-banned from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed, which should achieve the same result. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't know if this is of any importance, but this sandbox page showed up just recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox Seems to have something to do with BYU, not sure if it's important vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Original page deleted, archive here vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging editors who participated in the prior discussions per WP:APPNOTE: @ජපස, WhatamIdoing, Horse Eye's Back, Rosguill, JoelleJay, Bon courage, Aquillion, P-Makoto, BilledMammal, FyzixFighter, Levivich, Primefac, Vghfr, David Fuchs, Pigsonthewing, BoyNamedTzu, Fram, Certes, Naraht, Guerillero, and Awilley:

    • How anyone can read Rachel Helps (BYU)'s user page (even before recent edits) and say her CoI is "undisclosed " beggars belief. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There seems to be some idea (such as advanced by Andy above) that merely disclosing a COI absolves you of any possible infractions; that is not the case, as the evidence at the VPM discussion amply demonstrates. There's apparent evidence of off-wiki coordination that obfuscates COI editing. I see the concern that there are much worse offenders here, and Helps' self-identification makes picking out the COI edits that much easier... but that doesn't materially change the problem, discussed at length in the wider VPM thread, that Helps and similar editors have materially distorted and overemphasized coverage of LDS topics in ways that are not keeping with due weight. This is probably an issue with a lot of GLAM/WIR stuff, so I'm not surprised Andy is circling the wagons, but this is a pretty egregious example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overwhelming Support. WP:COI editing is bad enough, but considering that WiR is involved and that the COI violations are related to religion (which is already a subject that requires great care to maintain NPOV), Helps should absolutely be topic banned from LDS articles. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • And to further comment on this, these violations seem to be contrary to the purpose of WiR, which is for an existing editor to "accept a placement with an institution to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that institution," not to have an person with existing ties to the institution to "facilitate" Wikipedia articles on their institution
      vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, the disregard and disrespect this paid editor has for our COI expectations is staggering. The attitude is not that they should follow best practices, its that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted and permitted in infinite quantities. An example of this attitude: "Also, if something is "strongly discouraged," it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule."[58] So lets do what we have to do and enforce our community expectations, otherwise people will continue to ignore and disrespect "A rule that can't be enforced" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do see violations of COI policies but they are not an end in themselves and exist to protect the reliability of our content. So, can I get some examples of shoddy content being injected into our articles by Rachel Helps? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      jps wrote in the linked discussion,

      I continue to find poor writing, sourcing, and editorial approaches on page after page dedicated. The cleanup that will be required to recover from this is tremendous ...

      Some diffs are in order? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I listed diffs in that thread. Happy to list them again, but it may be a bit repetitive. Also, you can check my article space edit history from today as I’ve begun the long process of dealing with the fallout and that history may be illustrative. jps (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Apparently Airship was posting this while I was posting my disagreement with the evidence presented in the other thread. Yes, she seems to have written an article about an (apparently notable) co-author. More than half the evidence presented is about other editors (how dare she help newbies?). There have been previous discussions about her editing, and they've agreed that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board applies. She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things. More generally, I think that much of this is based on fear of religious editors. For example: She is accused of – over the course of 18 years and nearly 10,000 edits – writing two (2) articles that some editors (including me) think she might be too close to the subject to do so independently, and that it would have been more appropriate to send through WP:AFC. That's 4% of her article creations. Banning someone for a procedural error in 4% of contributions is not a proportional response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know it should be 100% through AfC right? "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" Thats incredibly damning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't agree that articles she needed to send articles such as Stretch Armstrong (ska band) and List of inmates of Topaz War Relocation Center and Anarchism and Esperanto and Hidden Figures (picture book) through AFC. Can you think of any reason why, e.g., she should consider herself to have a conflict of interest with a Japanese interment camp that was closed before she was born, then do please explain that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because she was paid to make them. Thats a direct financial COI. I didn't say she needed to send the articles to AfC, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing, a couple of things: the co-author is also a Master's thesis supervisor, which isn't great; as there is precisely one "newbie" named in my analysis (the others being employees, editors with extensive COI history, and a bureaucraat currently at ArbCom for a CoI issue), I would ask you to consider your words more carefully. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Redacted). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A large proportion of our articles on universities and their staff are probably heavily edited by external relations offices and staff of the organisation, but they generally do it very professionally, under the radar. If we nobble this editor, we need, in fairness, to do the same to all those others too. But the articles are often accurate and well-written (because they've been written by someone who actually knows what they're talking about). Apply COI rules with caution lest you end up with an encyclopaedia written entirely by clueless people using out-of-date sources. Remember, most academic/institutional COI editing won't be reported because the person who knows (a) that the University of Somewhere's article is edited mostly by JSomeone, and (b) that the public relations officer happens to be called John Someone, can't actually do anything about it without outing themselves as another staff-member, and DOXing Dr Someone. Elemimele (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this argument the equivalent of saying "If the cops don't have the knowledge and resources to give every single speeder a speeding ticket then nobody should get a speeding ticket"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's like saying that if absolutely everyone is speeding down a particular bit of road, then maybe something's wrong with the speed-limit (or the overall approach to its enforcement) and issuing one ticket won't solve the problem. Our COI policy is wildly naive, and particularly good at punishing those who admit their COI rather than those who just deny everything. Elemimele (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But your argument isn't that everyone is speeding, your argument is that most roads have been sped on. Do you really think that "absolutely everyone" is doing egregious undisclosed COI editing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you happen to see any other paid contributors, grandly titled "Wikipedians-in-Residence" and promoted by the WMF as an example of Wikimedia-public relations, who undermine COI to this extent, give me a ping and I'll certainly !vote to "nobble" them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobble is actually a word, huh. Also, another day, another Primefac LDSuppression — when will it end? El_C 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness he's also been taking action to resolve these COI issues off-wiki, see discussion on his talk page. Levivich (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things.
    Contrast this with her COI declarations:
    However, curators and other librarians sometimes request that I work on certain pages. ...
    One of my students created the page for James Goldberg at the request of a curator, in conjunction with the library acquiring his personal papers. I assigned this to one of my students rather than myself because I know James personally. ...
    When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. ...
    At the request of one of my curator colleagues, I improved the page for Glen Nelson. ...
    I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon. I participate in this community of Mormon artists. Their shows have featured work by artists whose pages I have worked on for work, for example, Matt Page (artist), whose page I created when our 21st-century curator requested that I work on his page after acquiring some of his personal papers. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People make suggestions for topics; sometimes she agrees. So? People ask me to make edits, too; sometimes I grant their requests, too. I'd bet that if people in your life know you edit Wikipedia, that you also get such requests. That's not a conflict of interest.
    I'd also like you to think about what I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon means. It means she gives money to them, not the other way around. Shall we ban Wikipedia editors who donate to the WMF or one of the affiliates from editing anything in Category:Wikipedia? Shall we tell editors that if they buy Girl Scout cookies, they can't edit Girl Scouts of the USA? Kick all the devs out of the open-source articles? Merely being a minor donor or a minor customer is not automatically a conflict of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you just...willfully ignoring all context now? Because this is starting to look like bikesheddy obstructionist nitpicking for the sake of...who knows?
    Here we have an employer requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer, because Helps is officially employed in a WP liaison capacity with that employer. Helps says she fulfills some of these requests. All of this is above-board PAID (but not necessarily COI) editing and is utterly different from your hypothetical of some random person suggesting you write about some topic neither of you has a COI with. It also happens to contradict your claim that Helps says BYU doesn't choose topics for her to write about, which wouldn't actually even be a problem if those topics weren't connected to her or BYU (and I'm not alleging they are!).
    Your second paragraph is somehow even more of a strawman. Nowhere in the comment above did I allege Helps has a COI with any of those examples of employer-requested editing, and certainly nowhere did I suggest editors can't edit on things they've ever spent any amount of money on. It's almost like you are replying to some synthesis of my comments in this thread, but I know that can't be true because if you had actually read my one other substantive comment in this ANI discussion you wouldn't have made that ridiculous comparison to Girl Scout Cookies in the first place when it's abundantly clear Helps' COI with ARCH-HIVE goes way beyond simply donating to them on Patreon. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay my editing experience with WhatamIdoing has been — their Wikipedia editing style comes across as inexplicably argumentative or contrarian on most any topic. I don't recall if they eventually come around or change their mind, such as after somehow ferreting out a truth during a particular confrontation or argument. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we have an employer requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer:
    No, we don't. Here we have colleagues with no authority over her whatsoever, often from unrelated departments, who think they've identified a cool subject for Wikipedia, chosen for their relevance to the colleagues' own interests and activities, and an employer who thinks Wikipedia is cool enough that they let her spend part of her work time making that information freely available to the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you really suggesting someone whose position is "Coordinator of Wikipedia Initiatives at the Harold B. Lee Library" is being paid to edit in whatever topic areas they want with no expectation from the university that this work ever ought to benefit the university or further the interests of its owner? Or that a BYU employee requesting an article on a former BYU professor after the employee helped procure some of that professor's own works for BYU's collection, might be making this request on behalf of BYU as part of their job?
    Do you think, in the above example, that someone serving in an official, Wikipedia-supported expert editing instructor position would believe COI from their extensive personal relationship with the subject is eliminated by assigning that article creation request to their own BYU employees? JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in response to ping: frankly, I haven't read the mountain of evidence in enough detail to !vote, but I don't think this problem is limited to a single editor. We may need to take a more holistic approach rather than hoping that removing one person will make everything right. Certes (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and agree with Certes above that this is only part of the problem. I became aware of the BYU walled garden of sources, awards, and editors through the Nihonjoe ANI discussion and subsequent Arbcom case. Looking at their edits, I first noticed the problematic editing and undisclosed COI of User:Thmazing, who will warrant an ANI section on their own. But other names which kept popping up where User:P-Makoto, who keeps denying the obvious COI issues, and Rachel Helps (and her other account) and her large number of paid BYU students (who list her as their employer).
    When I look at an article like Second Nephi, completely rewritten by these editors over the last few months[59] (apart from P-Makoto and Rachel Helps, I count 3 other paid BYU editors there): the page is expanded, but hardly improved. Claims like "J.N. Washburn, an independent scholar, cites that 199 of 433 verses from Isaiah appear with the same wording and proposes that Joseph Smith used the King James Bible version whenever it was close enough to the original meaning of the plates he was said to be translating and used the new translation when meaning differed" not only treat the "he find some old plates he translated" as truth, but try to claim that "independent" scholars support this, even though Jesse Nile Washburn was a LDS missionary who had studied at BYU before he published his books on Mormonism, so no idea what's "independent" about him. The whole article, just like most articles rewritten by Rachel Helps and her employees, are written from a distinctly in-universe, uncritical perspective.
    For some reason she is very reluctant to note her COI on the talk page of these articles, insisting that the declaration on her user page is sufficient. She also takes it upon herself to remove critical tags from the pages, e.g. here or here, or to remove correct[60][61] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[62]. A typical edit is something like this, supposedy "more detail for the naturalistic explanation section" but in reality removing two of the four sources and changing the more general claim about the non-religious origin of some Mormon belief to a much more LDS-friendly version. Just some examples from her 100 most recent mainspace edits... Fram (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Fram's evidence and others. I should note the above mentioned Second Nephi refers to another "independent scholar" (Matthew Nickerson) and then cites an article that appeared in a journal published by BYU. I would also hope that if a ban is enacted, it explicitly covers the Association for Mormon Letters and related topics, including fellow members, per the information provided in the Village Pump thread. Jessintime (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, not because Rachel Helps has undisclosed COI (she discloses BYU and AML on her userpage), but because she helped other editors with undisclosed COI (e.g. BYU, AML) make undisclosed COI edits, and did things like nominate their articles to DYK, or move their articles to mainspace. The diffs are at WP:VPM. I also agree with Certes that this problem is broader and includes the editors who have/had undisclosed COIs, but that doesn't absolve Ms. Helps of her role in what now seems to be an actual conspiracy of AML people to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their work, and by extension their religion, by using a combination of undisclosed accounts and paid BYU editors. The unfortunate thing is that if everybody affiliated with AML had just disclosed it, there wouldn't really have been a problem... except they would have had to wait for editors without COI to do things like approve drafts, but I don't get why that would have been a problem. Undisclosed COI editing is a problem even if it's good undisclosed COI editing because it undermines trust. It's really quite dangerous to the mission of an encyclopedia anyone can edit: the whole venture rests on the belief that editors will follow "the honor system" and either avoid or be transparent about their COIs. Finally, a note to anyone commenting: If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the reasons I still support a full TBAN and not a lesser sanction is that Rachel Helps has been editing longer than I have. And unlike me, she was paid to do it. If she cannot learn in eight years of paid editing what I learned in five years of volunteer editing in my spare time, then I'm not sure there is much hope here. She's not new at this, and this isn't the first time these problems have come up. I'd have more sympathy if she had less experience or if this wasn't a repeat issue. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On one hand, I'd support a topic ban on the paid student employees. Certainly going forward that's what I think is best (employees of the BYU WiR should not edit articles related to Mormonism... let them do that on their own time), but then TBANing the WiR should be sufficient to prevent problems with student employees in the future (and per her note below, she is already reassigning them to other topics).
    On the other hand, I don't like the idea of sanctioning any of the student employees because they were "just following orders," and if their orders were different, they'd have followed the different orders, so I don't view the student employees as being culpable or even being able to act independently of their supervisor (the WiR), I see them as proxies/meatpuppet accounts except they understandably would think their proxying was OK because it was directed and supervised by a WiR. So I think I come down on the side of giving students a pass for past policy/guideline violations as long as there are clear guardrails for the future. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support with regret. I really wish this could be done differently, but I think things have come to a head now and there may be no way to fix it without this kind of drastic approach. I tried to have a conversation yesterday with Rachel about improving her sourcing guideline, and I think that she is likely trying her best to act in good faith, but she is well past being able to collaborate with those who are going to question the WP:FRINGE nature of the claims that many apologists for the Mormon religion continue to make about their holy books. I could handle that (indeed, we see that sort of issue a lot here) if it was not also coupled with institutional support from Wikipedia as well as BYU in a way that I think was never done properly. If we are going to pay students to edit Wikipedia, they ought to be allowed to edit it freely. BYU students are at a risk in being active here. If I saw one of them make an edit that looked like apostasy, I could report them to their stake or bishop or the school itself and they could be found in violation of the strict honor code and expelled. I don't think we have thought clearly about what that means given the openness of this website and the unusual closed-ness of the BYU system. For the benefit of all involved, it is probably best that this partnership be ended with a clean break. jps (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Rachel Helps has now disclosed a massive amount of COI on her user page. Given how extensive and egregious it is, as well as her repeated emphasizing that she uses her personal account to publish articles she feels would be in violation of PAID if published from her BYU account, I get the impression that she still does not understand what it means to have a COI and how that should impact her editing. Initially this put her actions in a slightly better light to me, since it seemed many of these violations were done in mostly good faith and simply weren't recognized by her to be COI (or at least not that big of a COI, which is more of an institutional problem), rather than intentional concealment of edits she knew weren't kosher. I would have been satisfied with a promise to avoid editing or directing others to edit articles where there is even a whiff of apparent COI and an agreement to limit LDS-universe sourcing. However, reading this dissembling exchange she had on her personal account talkpage with an NPPer regarding COI and blatant PROMO for ARCH-HIVE, I have a hard time believing no deceit has occurred:

      Hi Celestina007, first you said that you draftified it because of sourcing issues and notability issues, but now because of promo and possible COI? A little consistency would be nice. I thought about what you said about the page having too much promotional language, and I removed most of the background section. I have an interest in the page (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but I don't think it's a COI. I don't make any money from the ARCH-HIVE's success, and I have not been paid to write the page.

      This was in Feb 2022, well after she had started writing blog posts and participating in exhibitions for the group, and well after she served on an AML judging committee the same year ARCH-HIVE won an award. This led me to look into some other potential COI edits involving authors she has reviewed for the AML: Dean Hughes, whose wiki page has been edited extensively by Helps' student Skyes(BYU) (66 major edits, 8000+ bytes added, including bibliography entry for the book Helps reviewed); D. J. Butler, to whose bibliography Helps added the book she judged, sourced to an AML announcement by her colleague, and to which Skyes(BYU) added 11 major edits; and Steven L. Peck, 85% of whose page was written by Helps between 2017 and 2023. I'm sure I could go on. Incidentally, pretty much all of these pages have also been edited by Thmazing (AML president) and NihonJoe (ArbCom case)...
      All of this goes well beyond what we could reasonably expect even a novice editor to understand are COI edits, let alone someone in a paid position of authority who is mentoring other paid employees of BYU on how to edit wikipedia articles! Honestly I think ArbCom might be the next place to go given the amount of promotion of minor Mormon contemporary authors by what seems to be a heavily interconnected group of BYU-associated editors with un- or under-declared COIs. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground. This will happen as long as anonymous editing is allowed on Wikipedia. But what I think is far more important for determining a possible topic ban for myself and my team is the quality of my edits in the topics the ban is aimed at covering. I believe an underlying assumption is that since I work for the BYU Library, I wouldn't say bad things about Mormonism (broadly construed), the LDS Church, or BYU. I have edited on many pages in these topics and many have changed the way I think about the LDS Church and BYU, and not in a good way. Some examples are Battle at Fort Utah, a page I expanded about a one-sided attack on Timpanogos families supported by Brigham Young that lies at the heart of the city of Provo's founding. What about Seventh East Press, a page for an independent student newspaper at BYU, which was banned from being sold on BYU campus primarily because of an interview with Sterling McMurrin where he said that he didn't believe the Book of Mormon to be literally true (which I promoted on DYK)? The fact that Lucinda Lee Dalton requested her sealing to her husband be cancelled and it was revoked posthumously? Ernest L. Wilkinson's spy ring controversy? Dallin H. Oaks's negative evaluation of Nothing Very Important and Other Stories? My own students have said things like "I've summarized stuff I disagree with" (and they have published it as part of their job). Some people have expressed shock that as a professional writer, I'm messing up all the time. Guess what. There's no degree in Wikipedia editing! If you examine my considerable edit history, you are going to find errors! But I believe that on the whole, the work I and my students have done has improved Wikipedia. We have added so much accurate information, cited in-line, to reliable sources. We have helped to make more sources discoverable by summarizing and citing them. Is it that surprising that my years of editing Wikipedia in Mormon Studies have led me to gain some expertise in my field and made me want to study Mormon literature professionally? I've attempted to list all the possible COIs I could think of on my user page, and I stand by the NPOV of all of my edits. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, I'm a paid student editor who works on LDS topics. But that doesn't mean that I have been out to present a construed vision of Mormonism. When people have pointed out a lack of neutral point of view (which was wholly unintentional on my part and consisted of a few words) I have made an effort to fix it and invited them to help me. Other than that, I'm not seeing where there is a lack of this neutral point of view. Is summarizing what other people say about Mormon topics considered a violation of NPOV? Because I didn't think it was. If you're worried about the Mormon authors, keep in mind I have also used sources from Elizabeth Fenton (not a Mormon), John Christopher Thomas (a man who follows the Pentecostal tradition), and Fatimah Salleh (a reverend). Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting a bit off-topic. ජපස seems OK with hatting this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. You may feel that you run no risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, but if that happened because of your attempt to include content that was critical of your church, ‘’you could be expelled’’. This is what your school says in its policies. Now, maybe they don’t enforce those policies anymore, but I can only go by what I read of BYU’s rules. And according to those rules, it’s not really safe for you to try to accommodate the radically open ideology of this website as you work for and are enrolled in a school which has an entirely different ideological commitment. jps (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you seen anything in my edits that is harmful to the LDS Church or to anyone else? Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You don’t seem to be understanding my point. It doesn’t matter what I have or haven’t seen in your edits. You are free at this website inasmuch it is an Open Culture Movement website to explore, edit, study, and expand your horizons to whatever extent you would like. We encourage that on principle. Normally, I would welcome such engagement. But here is the thing: you are employed by BYU to write here. You are also a student. My commitment to radical openness then is now necessarily tempered by my greater concern for your well-being as a student and student worker because, frankly, that is far more important than the openness of this website. And if your school had a commitment to academic freedom, free speech, and so forth, there would be no tension there. But the fact remains that BYU has really strict policies. To be clear: You aren’t doing anything wrong! But we can’t stop your school from mistreating you on the basis of what I would considered normal activity at this website. If you came out tomorrow as a promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist (and I’m not saying you will… just go with the hypothetical) then while we would welcome you, suddenly you find yourself without support from the institution you rely on. And so we’re stuck. I think we can’t operate according to our own community rules because doing so puts you at risk and we need to figure out how to fix that. Having you contribute to article space is almost certainly not the right answer. If you had a sandbox where you could offer quotes from sources or apologetics or what have you that would help maintain your ecclesiastical endorsement, then there would be less of a problem. But you are duty bound to maintain a fealty to your church and your faith which this website should not be challenging because it can cause you problems. jps (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Acknowledging my disclosed past connection to BYU, I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous, howsoever inadvertently, to frame this as humanitarian concern for Heidi Pusey (BYU) and kind of paternalistic to insist that she can't assess for herself what her situation at BYU is like and whether there's any risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, to use your words. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The concern is not whether she made the correct or incorrect assessment. I trust that she knows what she is doing. I'm assessing the entirety of the situation for myself as a member of this community. My goal generally (it has nothing to do with this user specifically) is to make sure that all people are taken care of as best they can be. I see the following situation: (1) BYU has rules (2) this website has rules (3) those rules are by my reading at fundamental odds. I think that the best thing we can do given that, as a website community, and given that I have absolutely zero sway over BYU, is to prevent a situation where students acting as compelled editors (that's part of what getting paid to edit does, as fun as I find it to be since I do it for free) edit content that is directly relevant to those rules. It's that simple. Because let's say there is no risk of her running afoul of such. Then that is equally a problem in my mind. This stamps out the very radical openness we are trying to promote and makes me worried that the BYU student who is in the closet about their scholarship that identifies problems with the Book of Mormon would not and should not take this job. This can of worms is ugly and it gets worse the more you look at it. jps (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I am not in the closet about my scholarship and do not appreciate such an assumption.
      2. I do not appreciate you attacking my identity and saying I could hypothetically become a "promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist." Such an assumption is unfounded and unacceptable. I will not tolerate it.
      3. I will no longer reply in this thread. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Y'all don't see the problem here? This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical and she's being paid to write about Mormon exegesis. jps (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. I do not think it is our place to try to sanction or remove adult editors from our community because we as a third party judge they are taking on too much risk by editing here. I think this argument is very weak. This is an ANI thread about sanctions. We should stick to discussing and sanctioning actual, demonstrable misconduct. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They are at a risk because of our toleration of the situation of paid editing through this program. Shut the program down and it is no longer a risk. The misconduct was done by her boss. I support sanctioning the boss. I'm not sure what to do about the student, so sure, close this whole commentary as off-topic. jps (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The evidence seems to be quite clear. scope_creepTalk 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support based on Rachel Helps' own defense above. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground is not a good reason to allow blatant COI editing. I'm okay with driving it even further underground. Toughpigs (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The COI editing stuff was not my main concern (I'm far more worried about the paid editing junket), but I just thought I'd let the watchers here know that I tagged an article [63] just now. It's a puff-piece pure and simple and the evidence for COI is pretty straightforward if y'all have been paying attention to these posts. I agree, this needs to be stopped. I'm pretty close to striking my "with regret" which gives me regret. jps (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, this entire situation shows that we need to take a step back and take a look at possibly changing policy to prevent this from happening again. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This may need to be kicked to Arbcom. It involves at my last count at least 5 editors not even counting the students. Oh dear. jps (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I worry we're conflating separate issues.
    1) Rachel Helps' involvement with articles about AML, ARCH-HIVE, and Michael Austin strikes me as a clear COI issue and a breach of community trust.
    2) There's a broader question around how to interpret COI when it comes to BYU and the LDS church. I think the COI argument here is plausible, but much less clear cut than #1. I do worry about creating a chilling effect for e.g. an Oxford professor citing a colleague who was published by Oxford University Press, or a math teacher at a Catholic school editing a page on the Trinity. If we do need to consider this COI, I think we should take our time and define the problem narrowly and precisely.
    3) There are NPOV and sourcing concerns around some Book of Mormon articles. I'm skeptical that a topic ban will improve this, or that the articles are worse for BYU editors' involvement. Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. The BYU team seems to take these concerns seriously and make good faith efforts to include non-LDS sources. If individual articles aren't notable, we can delete them.
    4) Finally, there's a concern about implicitly endorsing BYU policies and potential risks to BYU's editors. I agree with P-Makoto that this feels paternalistic, and I don't think this standard is workable. Even if we assume the worst of BYU, should we shut down any attempts to engage editors in China, in case someone writes something that upsets the CCP?
    I would support a sanction that's more narrowly tailored, e.g. blocking Rachel Helps from edits around AML and BYU faculty, while still letting her write about scripture and history. It seems excessive to block her from absolutely anything LDS related (e.g. Battle at Fort Utah) or to shut the program down.
    (In case there are any concerns: I've never met any of the editors involved, I've never attended, worked for, or even visited BYU, I learned what AML was earlier this afternoon, and I've never been a member of the church). Ghosts of Europa (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy Break (1)

    • Oppose Topic bans should not be punitive and are reserved for editors that engage in disruptive behavior within that topic area. I just don't see the hallmarks of disruptive editing that I've encountered in other situations, particularly in physics-related topics, that did result in topic bans. I do see very poor judgement when editing with both disclosed and undisclosed COI and operating with the gray zone caused by inconsistence guidance in the COI guidelines (Gray zone example, in one part COI editor should identify in all three places, in another it says that editors may due it in one of three places - an editor who tried to push the former with regards to Rachel was told by multiple admins that their interpretation was more expansive the intended COI guideline). I do find her response to HEB regarding this gray zone very troubling, but not disruptive. This should have been raised at COIN, prior to being elevated to ANI. I would note that Rachel editing and her WiR function have been brought up there before which did not end with sanctions, so it seems like bringing the dispute here has the appearance of forum shopping - might not be given new information since that discussion. I also disagree with the insinuation that because her COI is with BYU, she is incapable of editing in an NPOV manner when it comes to the LDS Church under some kind of threat, spoken or unspoken, from the religious leaders and therefore inherently disruptive if she edits in that topic. BYU teaches evolution in its biology classes, teaches the standard 4.5 billion year age for the earth in its geology classes, teaches a human history/prehistory that does not kowtow to Biblical or Book of Mormon teachings in its anthropology and archaeology classes, and so on - so the argument that the BYU employment means she has to edit inline with church doctrine is based on faulty assumptions and extrapolations. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion. It doesn't matter if Microsoft doesn't tell the editors exactly what to edit, or tells them explicitly to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant. Advertisement is advertisement, and this is advertisement. It doesn't matter if it's the LDS Church or Microsoft, it doesn't matter if it's articles about characters in the Book of Mormon or articles about characters in Microsoft video games. In both cases, it's just paying people to raise the profile of their products and their brand on Wikipedia. A TBAN from promoting the product seems actually lenient to me, like the minimum preventative measure Wikipedia should take in this situation, not punitive at all. Levivich (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant. Sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter the quality of the edits, if the motivation for making the edits is wrong. Is this correct? Some might disagree with that statement, preferring to accept high quality edits regardless of motivation. Although maybe we should discuss this more at WT:COI rather than here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, not the motivation for making the edits, and no, this is the right place, this is about whether this proposed TBAN is preventative or not. I'm saying "it doesn't matter" in several different ways, but the motivation of the editor isn't one of them, who knows or cares about people's motivations, since we have no way of determining an editor's motivations.
      If an edit violates one rule, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate another rule. If an edit violates COI or PAID, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or NPOV. If an edit violates NPOV, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or COI or PAID. If V or NPOV editing excused COI or PAID editing then we can just mark those pages historical, what's the point of even reading them?
      It also doesn't matter because a policy-compliant, high-quality Wikipedia article is good advertising. A TFA is the highest-quality level of article that Wikipedia offers, and also the highest-quality advertising placement. If someone is trying to promote themselves or something on Wikipedia, a high-quality article is going to be better than a low-quality one, and while a puffery article might be the best, an NPOV article is still better than no article. Companies/people/churches/other orgs will pay to have policy-compliant articles created about themselves or their products because it's good advertising, it's good for their reputation, which is good for business and the bottom line. It's about $$$.
      And just to belabor that point a little bit, think about it: how much are they paying per article? Hundreds of dollars? A thousand or a few thousand? Where else can you get guaranteed top-of-Google SEO placement for any search term for that cheap? And it's a one-time cost when they pay a paid editor to put it on Wikipedia, whereas ordinarily SEO of that quality is a monthly payment not a one-time. I think paid editors are like 90% cheaper than traditional SEO. Damn, I should advertise :-P
      But if you step back, by piggybacking on volunteer labor, organizations can use paid editing to save themselves a ton of money on internet advertising while breaking no Wikipedia rules (if done properly). If we were smart we'd bypass paid editing and the WMF and just set up an actual job board on Wikipedia and have some kind of group Patreon account. Instead of making donations to the WMF, buyers could just pay for articles about whatever they want, and editors can get paid for writing articles, like $50 for a stub, maybe $500 for a GA, $1000 for an FA. Channel it all into an official channel and kinda kill two birds with one stone, I say. (And I'd be happy to administer it all for a reasonable management fee.)
      So anyone who wants to invest their marketing $ in paid editing is actually free to do that, as long as the editors disclose and otherwise abide by the rules. But in this case, we have undisclosed COI and PAID editing by a number of people, and in the situation where an organization's marketing $'s are going not just to policy-compliant editing, but also to non-policy-compliant editing, then it seems like barring the non-policy-compliant editors from editing about the organization, broadly construed, is appropriate.
      As an aside, it also bothers me that paid undergraduates are involved. Teaching the wrong lesson here. Levivich (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have these concerns about GLAM in general? Suppose the British Museum pays me to write about obscure parts of their collection. This will be great SEO and may encourage people to visit, and even though the museum is free, many visitors will probably make a donation. If I use the best available scholarship and teach millions of people for free, and the museum gets donations, would you object? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      GLAM walks a fine line, no question. That's why it's extra important that people who participate in that sort of program as leaders be extra careful to keep their noses clean and think very carefully about the implications of their actions and activities, as far as I'm concerned. The alternative can easily devolve into this mess. jps (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ghosts of Europa: I don't know much about GLAM, but yes, same concerns, no reason to treat galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, as any different from other organizations (companies, non-profits, churches). In your hypothetical, you'd still be hired to promote the museum's product (their collection), no different from Microsoft paying someone to promote one of their products. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with COI-tainted editing is that it given us an encyclopedia (and community) different to what we would have with if unconflicted editors were at work. It skews the process. It is "dirt in the gauge" as WP:COI used to mention. In practical terms we seem to have ended up with Wikipedia giving disproportionate/undue and often credulous coverage to this religion. The argument that "COI doesn't matter if the edits are good" would justify lifting restrictions on WP:PAID editing (and is often delpoyed by paid editors). Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If it truly is a prescriptive ban, intended to enforce adherence to COI guidelines, then the TBAN should be narrowly applied to where she has actual COI, as defined by those COI guidelines. In this case, the COI is BYU and AML. I am not convinced that it extends to the LDS Church or LDS topics generally. She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church, and the same is true for Rachel - some examples that immediately come to mind are her edits that do make look the church look good (see her list above) and even her use of "LDS Church", which indicate the arguments that her terms of employment affect LDS-related topics generally are easily disproven. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's like saying an Altria employee only has a narrow COI to the company, and is free to write about the Health effects of tobacco! If you're paid to write a load of stuff about Mormons, the COI problem resides in doing just that. Bon courage (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church
      This is completely false, as BYU is owned by the LDS Church and its honor code (literally the Church Education System Honor Code, sponsored by the LDS Church) expressly prohibits actions that go against church doctrine:

      As faculty, administration, staff, and students voluntarily commit to conduct their lives in accordance with the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, they strive to maintain the highest standards in their personal conduct regarding honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others. By accepting appointment, continuing in employment, being admitted, or continuing enrollment, each member of the campus communities personally commits to observe the CES Honor Code approved by the Board of Trustees:
      Maintain an Ecclesiastical Endorsement, including striving to deepen faith and maintain gospel standards

      Multiple BYU professors have been fired for supporting--off-campus and strictly in a personal, sometimes even private, capacity--things the LDS church considers against-doctrine[64][65][66][67][68], so there is absolutely reason to believe they would fire a mere student employee for expressing such opinions. JoelleJay (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is an extrapolation beyond the stated honor code that you quoted to say "principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ" equals "church doctrine". If that were true then all members of the faculty and employees would have to be members of the LDS Church (they aren't), not teach evolution (they do), not teach the big bang (they do), not teach a completely non-theistic abiogenesis and creation of the earth (they do), not teach that human civilization extends way past 4000BC with no mention of Nephites, Lamanites, or Noah's ark (they do), or not use "LDS Church" (they do). Again, it's demonstrably false the claimed level of control over BYU employees in general and specifically in this case. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please read the original thread, this is discussed in great detail. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are conflating the acceptability of BYU profs lecturing on what is the mainstream, secular perspective on those topics, outside the context of the church, and BYU profs opining on what is "true" about those topics in relation to church doctrine. The former is endorsed by BYU, the latter can lead to threat of excommunication.[69] (A professor at a Washington State community college who expected to be excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over an article he wrote regarding the Book of Mormon has had his disciplinary hearing postponed indefinitely.
      Thomas W. Murphy, chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, came under scrutiny for an article he wrote for American Apocrypha, an anthology published in 2002 by Signature Books. In the article, he reviews genetic data to refute the Mormon assertion that American Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. ...      ) [70][71] (An Australian author who wrote that DNA evidence fails to support the ancestral claims outlined in the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated by The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints.) This is also blatantly obvious from the examples I gave above of BYU lecturers' personal opinions on homosexuality and feminism directly leading to their termination of employment. JoelleJay (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      All BYU employees are directly employed by the LDS Church, there is no separation between the two. I'm surprised that someone who primarily edits in the LDS topic area wouldn't know that. Its also a bit odd that you're holding up evolution, age of the earth, Big Bang etc up as ways in which BYU contradicts church teachings when the LDS Church doesn't take a position on evolution and doesn't take a position on the age of the earth or how it/the universe was created beyond a rather wishy washy one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: a query to FyzixFighter about any potential COI elicited this strange response.[72] Bon courage (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thats not terribly surprising, at this point it looks like all of the editors besides FyzixFighter who were harassing anyone who question Rachel Helps (BYU) have disclosed COIs. Its a shame they have chosen to retire rather than face the music but thats their choice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose broad topic ban Oh no, don't ban my second-favorite wiki-gnome! Seriously, though, it saddens me to see someone who is so clearly a net-positive getting hauled off to AN/I like this. Though I don't recall collaborating directly with Rachel Helps, we've crossed paths many times over the past several years, and I've always been impressed by her approach to editing and interacting with others here. I've found her to be polite, intelligent, and honest, if perhaps a bit naive. I remember being confused the first time she crossed my watchlist...my knee-jerk reaction was "why is an official BYU employee/representative editing articles about Mormonism"? Then I looked at the substance of her edits...adding sources here, reverting vandalism there, removing copyvios, expanding articles about Mormon women, and refusing to take a stance on controversial issues where she thought she might be influenced by bias. Whenever there was a consensus on something, she would follow that consensus. If she wasn't sure about something, she would ask. I think I remember seeing her report herself to a noticeboard somewhere when another editor continued challenging her on something where she thought she was right but wanted to make sure the broader community thought so too. Look at her response to this. She's not digging in—she's trying to understand and comply with the community's expectations. If you look at her recent edits to User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Conflict of Interest statements you'll see that she's gone waaay overboard on trying to declare every possible conflict of interest. She's openly admitting fault where she was wrong, and is clearly committed to doing better. I hope the people !voting here and the closing admin will take that into consideration. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor. ~Awilley (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't get the impression she is trying to understand me or anyone else who is concerned about the sum total of the mess that is Book of Mormon articles. There is absolutely no engagement with the issues at hand and when I tried to explain WP:FRINGE sourcing, the answer came back "yes, we disagree." That's fine, but one of us is being paid to be here and has a ready paid group of students who look to her for editorial guidance, right? You haven't been in conflict with her. If you end up in conflict, do you think the wider context would be a problem? jps (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know that I'd call it "conflict" but I can recall instances where I've disagreed with edits I saw her making. In each case, she immediately stopped what she was doing and listened to my objections. If she wasn't convinced by my argument, she sought a wider consensus. I've never seen her edit against a consensus.
      A few years ago there was a big influx of newbie editors trying to scrub the words "Mormon" and "Mormonism" from the encyclopedia because of recent remarks from the correct LDS president/prophet saying that use of the term was offensive to God and a victory for Satan. (The LDS church has had a long on-again-off-again relationship with the word.) I personally thought it was best to continue using the word on Wikipedia, both to be true to how reliable sources talk about Mormonism, and to be accessible to readers who are only familiar with the common name. But I suddenly found myself in the minority in opposing the changes. I suspect that personally Rachel Helps wanted to follow the command of the LDS president and that her colleagues and possibly employers at BYU were hoping that she could make Wikipedia comply with the church's new style guide. But she didn't. She participated in some discussions about the disagreement, but she didn't push hard for any particular outcome, and she (afaict) has continued to this day to respect and enforce Wikipedia's own style guide that still explicitly allows calling people Mormons, probably to the chagrin of church leadership.
      Anyway, my point is that as far as disagreements go, Rachel Helps is one of the more pleasant people I've ever disagreed with. I wish more Wikipedians were like her in that respect. ~Awilley (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think pleasantness is an issue. There is a common misconception on Wikipedia that COIs are inherently somehow "bad", but in reality the more you do in life the more COIs you accrue. It's only people who sit in their basement all day who don't have any COIs. Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You didn't really answer my question. Here's where I am as of two days ago. This user has stated point blank that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources. In the last two days, after going through hundreds of edits at dozens of articles I notice that this is the primary kind of sourcing that her students are inserting into articlespace and they are still active. I get the distinct impression that she will not be directing her students to re-evaluate their sourcing guidelines or engage with me in discussion about this topic. Now, if I had a bunch of students I could employ to check up on all this, maybe that would be an equal footing dispute. But I don't think the idea here is to start a paid editing arms race, is it? jps (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I definitely wasn't trying to dodge a question. I guess my point is that I think Rachel Helps is the kind of person who would voluntarily direct her students to follow whatever policy, guideline, or consensus you pointed her to. I think she could also be convinced by logic alone, but I can't say for sure...people like that seem to be rare these days. I wouldn't be surprised if, to comply with a consensus, she asked her students to nominate their own articles for deletion. That said, I am not really clear on what you mean by religious sources that have been noticed by other religious sources. Are you talking in general about religious academic sources citing each other, or specifically about Mormon academics citing other Mormon academics but without getting cited by non-Mormon religious scholars? (There are probably better forums than AN/I for that discussion.) ~Awilley (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you're interested, this discussion that ground to a halt is still on her user talkpage. Feel free to check it out. jps (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So this whole long thing arose out of a dispute over whether religious sources could be reliable? She wouldn't agree that reliable religious sources needed to be validated by reliable secular sources, or that verifiable information should be omitted entirely when nobody could find a reliable secular source on the subject, so you started a COI discussion at VPM and now we have a topic ban proposal?
      Why didn't you start an RFC over whether information only available in religious sources should be excluded wholesale from all of Wikipedia, instead of trying to get rid of one editor who disagreed with you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is not what this arose out of. That dispute arose because I asked if she would consider hitting pause on her program and she came back with a set of sourcing guidelines that I found problematic. I asked her to hit pause on the program because I saw widespread issues that I am still working my way through and then noticed that all these students were being organized by one coordinator with what essentially amounted to the blessings of the GLAM/WIR system. jps (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I want to offer an addendum that since I wrote this comment, Rachel Helps has begun engaging with me on her talkpage. I find this encouraging. I still think on the balance having her and her students move away from LDS topics is a good idea, but there is discussion happening and as long as that is happening there is hope. jps (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Awilley: did you see Levivich's request "If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it."? We know you're involved and not a neutral admin, but do you have any conflicts of interest you should be disclosing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's kind of a weird litmus test for participating in an AN/I thread. I'd like to think that people should be judged based on the strength of their arguments rather than assumptions about their motivation. But if you insist, I attended BYU from about 2006-2012. I would have no idea what AML was if I hadn't just read the thread on village pump. To my knowledge I don't know and have never met any of the people in this or the other thread IRL, though it's possible we crossed paths without my realizing it. ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Its not weird if its an AN/I thread about undisclosed BYU related editing... Ok, I'm planning to open a new subsection about canvassing in a minute. Specifically regarding you and BoyNamedTzu. Is there anything you can tell me which would suggest that I should only open a discussion about BoyNamedTzu? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh, what? I don't know who BoyNamedTzu is. I logged in yesterday after getting a ping to the VP thread because I had participated in an older thread about you and Rachel Helps. Then I got another ping here because I had participated in the thread yesterday. I don't know what you're looking for, but since I've got your attention, I'd appreciate it if you could clue me in on what the invisible game of baseball is you mentioned on the VP thread. Because your response here seems a bit disproportionate. ~Awilley (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it is your sudden and inexplicable participation in that older thread about Rachel Helps and I which forms the basis for the canvassing concerns. I believe I said it was a game of inside baseball with an invisible ball... Unfortunately I can't provide any of that information due to WP:OUTING concerns, but it has been provided to ARBCON. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose broad topic ban. If we banned people who had any formal association with a Christian church or worship group from editing articles about Christianity, and the same for all religions and sects, we would have nobody left to edit the articles about those important topics, except maybe culture warriors from opposing beliefs, and who wants that? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you have misunderstood Rachel Helps relationship; it goes beyond a "formal association" - she is an employee, and one who is paid to edit. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you think it's ok for a BYU employee, who is paid and pays others to edit Wikipedia, to publish a puffy article about a Mormon organization she was actively writing pieces for; whose citations toward notability are an interview with one sentence of secondary independent coverage of the org, a piece on an exhibition organized by/featuring org members that also has only one sentence of secondary coverage of the org, and an award from another Mormon company for which this employee served as an awards judge the same year? Is it ok for this employee to initially deny COI with the claim she's merely "interested in the page"? And then, even after concerns about COI have been raised and seemingly acknowledged by her, and after the article was first draftified and then declined at AfC, to still recreate it?
      Is it ok for her to direct her employees to write articles on subjects because she can't write them herself due to COI"? JoelleJay (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per above. I also believe we should be considering topic bans for the other involved BYU editors. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose such a ban. Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, for example January 2023[73] at a location allowed by WP:DISCLOSE. In brief, WP:COI says "There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs) — Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations ..." (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board) though there is considerable further nuance which requires careful consideration. Different people may legitimately have different understandings. The status of Wikipedians in Residence has for long been a contentious matter and the problems should not be visited on particular individuals. My own experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive. Thincat (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • What has your "experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive." to do with a proposal to ban her specifically from BYU editing where evidence shows that it is not "extremely positive" as in neutral, but has too often a clear pro-BYU stance, reducing the emphasis on scientific positions and increasing the emphasis on non-scientific, partisan positions? Fram (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just added COI tags on tentwelve more articles that are connected directly to the COI campaign to promote the Association of Mormon Letters. Friends, this is really gigantic problem. It's been going on for years. jps (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Not being paid by Microsoft is not an excuse for being paid by another lobby group while acting against our trustworthiness guidelines. Pldx1 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy Break (2)

    • Question - Is this a situation that could be resolved with some careful voluntary commitments? The primary issue, it seems to me, is about COI/PAID and not otherwise about competency or a pattern of violating NPOV (I understand there are side conversations about NPOV/RS, but it doesn't seem to be the primacy concern). A topic ban from LDS would not, then, address COI matters to do with any other topic and would prevent her from working on articles with no COI (unless we say belonging to a religion means you have a COI for articles about that religion and anyone else who happens to belong).
      What about a voluntary commitment to (a) maintain a list on her userpage of articles edited with a conflict of interest, erring on the side of inclusion; (b) adding a notice to the talk page of any article edited in connection with her job (there's another parallel discussion about templates/categories which could accomplish this); (c) specifically noting if an edit is made at the request of an employer? That, combined with the knowledge that her edits will receive additional scrutiny due to this thread, seems like it would resolve this without a topic ban, no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain how it would be possible for a paid edit not to come with a COI? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I understand your question. If an edit falls under WP:PE, there is a COI. The trouble in this case, I think, is in the line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and paid editors. That's a big, messy question. Ditto the relationship between Mormon subjects broadly, BYU, LDS, etc. (not whether there is one, but how we should think about COI). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikimedian in Residence is a type of paid editor, there is no line between the two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what point you're making, but for clarity I will edit my words above: line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and ^how we treat other^ paid editors. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So if every edit that falls under PE has a COI... And every edit made by a wikipedian in residence falls under PE... How can a wikipedian in residence work on an article with which they don't have a COI? Any article they work on is one they have a COI with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has not generally been how the community chooses to interact with Wikimedians in Residence. We expect them to take a "warts and all" approach to editing, and to be cautious, but we also do not expect or AFAICT want them to spam {{edit COI}} on most of their contributions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the Wikimedian in Residence in question here has met neither of those expectations. They have not taken a "warts and all" approach to editing and have been about as far away from cautious as its possible to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to understand how this would prevent, for example, the coordinated editing from the Church of Scientology that we banned. We don't enforce disciplinary measures against people on the basis of their religious adherence. But here we have a group is being paid by an institution which is directly involved in the promulgation of said religion. When that happened with the Church of Scientology, we blocked the associated IP addresses on the argument that there basically was no way they could contribute to the encyclopedia at all. And to be sure, a lot of those accounts did good work other than being part of that coordinated effort. How is this different at all? jps (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Scientology case began with extensive NPOV violations achieved through sock/meatpuppetry/coordination. We didn't ban them because they were scientologists writing about scientology; we banned them because they were scientologists writing about scientology contrary to our policies. Such evidence hasn't been presented here as far as I've seen. Some level of coordination, yes, which should be disclosed, but not to game the system. That's a fundamental difference that makes the scientology comparison misleading. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the VPM thread? I document a few of the diffs there and it's basically a litany of the same. Here we have a group of editors who are adding prose that basically takes the Book of Mormon on its own terms as a text. When called out on it, the ringleader declared that she fundamentally disagrees with people who object to that behavior. It's exactly the same kind of thing the scientologists were doing. And, I mean, I was there for that one and saw it happening. Do me a favor and look at any of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Or look at all the pages I just tagged with COI and see how many of them were connected to Rachel. This is a complete clusterfuck. jps (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Scanned it, but apparently I have more to look at. Will check it out before !voting here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could use a pointer to the evidence you're referring to. I see diffs about COI, but not diffs of edits made my Rachel which violate our policies. The content-related diffs I do see (e.g. in your 17:06, 12 March 2024 comment) were made by others, who aren't the subject of this section. Do me a favor and look at any of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Is this an argument about over-coverage (in which case I'd rather see evidence of lots of deleted pages created by Rachel rather than focused efforts to cover a subject -- I'd argue we have overcoverage of a lot of religious subjects, including Mormonism, and a whole lot of editors focus on specific subjects), or is it an argument about use of inappropriate sources? Regardless, this isn't a topic ban for a group, it's a topic ban for one person so we'd need evidence that Rachel is editing in a non-neutral or otherwise problematic way (not just COI, which seems like something that can be resolved with transparency/assurances). It seems to me there's a bigger conversation that needs to happen regarding use of sources published in connection to a religion and/or by members of that religion. I don't think I peruse religious articles as much as you or many others, but it seems to me like most of them rely on such "in-universe" sources. I don't think that's ideal, but I'm wary of singling one out. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... are you saying that you don't think that she should be accountable for the edits that she paid her students to make? I can give you some examples of edits that she made if that's more to your liking, but I'm somewhat surprised that you are so dismissive of student edits which she has later defended on talkpages (but it's possible you aren't looking at larger context due to time). jps (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does a tban for RH prevent her students from doing anything at all? How would it prevent anything that happens off-wiki? As with any student program, if a student is persistently making bad edits, sanction them like you would any other user. If an instructor displays a pattern of disregard for our policies such that their students are a consistent net negative, that's a different kind of sanction (and I don't think there's enough evidence for that here, either, though that doesn't mean there haven't been problems). What I would expect for a tban on an individual is a pattern of harmful edits made to that topic area. That case hasn't been made sufficiently. The case that has been made, insofar as I've seen, is that there have been some clear COI problems and a difference of opinion when it comes to sourcing religious topics. On the latter, I think you and I are probably on the same page, but I don't see it as an entirely resolved policy issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't a TBAN mean paying her students for making any particular edits in that area would be sanctionable for both her and the students? So any edit made in LDS topics by the (BYU) student accounts would be a TBAN violation, but they would be free to edit in that area on their personal accounts. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The students would be stopped by WP:MEAT because they receive assignments from RH. jps (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relationships are a little confusing to me. We're talking, I think, about effectively interns/research assistant/student workers on one hand and students being students on the other hand. If RH were to be tbanned, that would make any students hired/directed to make specific edits by RH fall somewhere between MEAT and PROXYING, yes, which is a bad place to be. I don't think a general instruction to "edit Wikipedia" would be prevented, though. Nor would students hired by someone else and merely supported by RH. And a tban wouldn't prevent RH from what I suspect is the more common scenario: helping students, faculty, staff, and others to edit according to their own interests (i.e. not directed but supported). And that's IMO a good thing, not just because that attempts to reach too far off-wiki with on-wiki sanctions, but also because while the COI stuff should definitely be avoided, RH is better equipped than a typical student (or even faculty) editor to provide best practices/instruction, etc. I'd say that's probably more rather than less true after this thread. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way RH has set up the projects is that she guides the students very carefully in what they do. This is actually one positive thing she does that does not happen with other similar programs I have seen, so good on her for that. The upshot is that I would not want this kind of guidance on her part to end if this paid editing program continues, so her students would effectively be TBanned as well. If we started to see lots of edits the way they have been editing, that would, in my mind, constitute a topic ban violation. I cannot speak for RH, but I suspect that she would have them move away from Mormonism topics if she were TBanned which would be the best possible outcome, as far as I'm concerned.
    And, no, I am not convinced that things are going to get better just because of this discussion. There seems to have been an enculturation over the last few years which has provoked a kind of perfect storm of bad editing practices that I have been digging into over the last few days and it is not going to be easy to figure out what to do about all this. There seems to be an over-focus on treating the Book of Mormon as literature which is the main thrust behind RH's favored approach and that of others conflicted with the Association of Mormon Letters. Right now, we have lots of articles on weird little topics within the book of Mormon which treat the thing as though it were literature like Tolkien or Dickens I guess as a way to sidestep questions related to the religious beliefs that surround these things. The students she has coached seem to have adopted this approach in part while also maintaining delightfully matter-of-fact retellings of the mythology as though it were fact. It's a mess.
    But the students aren't really to blame here. They're being led by a much-lauded (by enablers you can see in this very thread) Wiki[p|m]edian in Residence who has been scrupulously trying to follow the rules and no one bothered to tell her that maybe editing about a religion as controversial as Mormonism (to which she belongs and is employed by the religious authorities of that religion through their in-house institution of higher education with strict rules on what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis that religion) maybe is not going to sit well with some in the Wikipedia community that takes things like WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE seriously.
    So here we are. Your idea to get her to clean things up means unlearning years of training that she invented without input from the community. I look forward to seeing what kind of program you might be able to invent that could address that. jps (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Voluntary commitments, really? No I wouldn't support that because a number of the editors involved have previously lied about not having COIs when asked. Also because this is years of undisclosed COI editing happening here. So, no, it'd be crazy of us to trust any voluntary commitments from people who have actively deceived us for such a long time and up until so recently. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Toughpigs, and similar action against other COI editors should be considered, per BilledMammal. This is an area where WP should take a hardline stance. Grandpallama (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per User:Vghfr, User:Fram and others. But I think we have a wider issue with LSD-related articles here that a few topic bans will not solve it. I agree with User:JoelleJay's comment in the other discussion about the lack of NPOV in "topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic". We have a massive walled garden of hundreds if not thousands of these obscure, otherwise NN topics sourced only to LSD-related publications which could pass the surface of GNG and easily game the notability rules. --Cavarrone 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Our articles on Catholicism mostly reflect Catholic sources. Our articles on Judaism mostly reflect Jewish sources. That is natural and only to be expected. Why is it suddenly a problem when the same thing occurs in our articles on LDS? The people one would expect to be interested in and write about LDS are...LDS people. That is the nature of the sources. It is not a conflict of interest to use the mainstream sources that are available. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that has not been my experience as I edited those topics. In fact, many of our Catholic articles have sources which are explicitly critical of the Catholic Church nearly to the point of vitriol. By contrast, Judaism is so irreverent and delightfully self-critical that I am at a loss for why you think the comparison to those pages is at all apt. jps (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes – if and when those other sources exist, are reliable, are relevant, etc.
      But from your comment above that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources, it sounds like the complaint you have here is that some content is being added from LDS-related sources when no non-religious source has ever disagreed with the LDS-related source.
      I have not seen any disputes in which someone adds information about a Catholic or Jewish religious idea, from a reliable source written by a religious organization, and someone else demands that the reliable source be removed on the grounds that non-religious sources haven't published anything on that subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then you haven't been looking at disputes over the Shroud of Turin. jps (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why would we even need specific examples from Catholic or Jewish editors when we had a whole arbcom case surrounding exactly this behavior from Scientology adherents? JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because a new religious group with something on the order of 10 thousand members is not the same as a 200-year religion with 17 million members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      LDS is a new religious movement the same as Scientology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What does the number of years a religion has been around or number of members of a religion have to do with anything? The only thing I can think of is that there are probably more sources if there is more time and people involved, which is true. But on the substance these things are the same. I mean, Mormonism and Scientology are actually very comparable. There are a great many excellent sources which show that. In fact, that was at one time one of the articles on my list of articles to write. The funny thing is that neither the Mormons nor the Scientologists like the comparison. jps (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened and so are of interest to secular historians, enough primary interpretations of scripture to engage dozens of generations of academics, and far broader and more significant impact on human culture in general, permitting even more opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship. We should not be treating every religious movement as if they're each equally likely to have the depth and independence of sourcing needed to support pages on minor aspects of their faith. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, some new religions too. For example, the foundational sacred texts of the Nation of Islam has some fascinating description of what life was like in the African American community of Detroit in the 1930s. jps (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Re "Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened": this reads as straight-up prejudice to me (and I have zero connection with LDS). You might just as well say have a much greater likelihood that those older religions' texts contain fabulations, misreadings, and other material we wouldn't want to take as literally true, simply because they've had so much longer to accumulate that sort of material. But we are not basing our content on the content of the Book of Mormon; we are basing it on the accounts of their historians. I would tend to imagine that, while biased, those accounts are maybe more likely to be accurate, because they are from a more recent time with better records, while the writings of the early Christian church historians have the same tendency to their own bias. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the older religions generally do have much more fabulist text, as well as a lot more material that has taken on mythical aspects or been reported by apologists (e.g. miracles) over hundreds or thousands of years. But that's irrelevant to what I am saying, which is that it's far more likely texts recounting religious narratives that we can accurately date to c. 300 AD will also have some bits of real history and info on life at the time that can't be found anywhere else, and would thus be of intense interest to modern scholars in many fields, than scripture written more recently (as contemporaneous writings become more numerous, the preciousness of any single one as a major primary source across multiple disciplines outside religion decreases) or scripture that wholly fabricates ancient history and is virtually useless to anyone actually studying its purported time period.
      There are extensive secondary analyses of secondary analyses etc. of scholarship on Jewish or Catholic scriptural and metaphysical questions, and new external sources or theories on the cultural/geopolitical/philosophical climate of a time continue to be discovered and incorporated into what we know about a spiritual topic beyond exegesis of scripture. We don't need to rely on unreliable primary or old secondary sources to do this because we generally have plenty of modern secondary sources, often in multiple nonsecular fields, to use in writing a comprehensive and neutral article on a subject. We don't have this for LDS topics because the furthest back historians can go from BoM et al scripture is 200 years ago. But LDS historians are still analyzing their scriptures in the sincere belief that they recount actual events from thousands of years ago, making the same kinds of extrapolations and interpolations from their holy books to reconstruct that past that any other historian would do with genuine ancient text, except none of it corresponds to real history. No questions in anthropology or archaeology or history are being answered in any way that is meaningful outside of LDS faith, and so no secular researchers in those disciplines have any reason to publish academic commentary on the LDS scholars' theories. The result is that we have hundreds of pages on minor characters and events from BoM where the only sources are from adherents collaboratively building what amounts to a fictional literary universe (or, perhaps as a more fitting analogy, a new, Hardy-hard branch of pure math), except it's dressed up in the same historiographic structure as we'd have on a topic with thousands of years of history. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's my view, not necessarely agreeable, but if an LSD topic has no sources outside LSD sources it is likely unnotable, and writing a balanced article about it is impossible. Also, I am not necessarely referring to strictly religious topics, eg., we have obscure, semi-amateur and poorly released films only sourced from Journal of Religion and Film, byu.edu and similar, same with books and other products. Cavarrone 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is a sensible rule. However, I worry about defining "LDS source" too broadly. Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction is written by a Mormon, but it's published by Oxford University Press and targeted at a non-LDS audience. Oxford also publishes an annotated Book of Mormon. I think we need to narrowly define what falls into this category, and have that conversation in a less heated atmosphere than ANI. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Cavarrone about notability, but I think the solution there is not to announce that only a secular source could possibly be acceptable for explaining the symbolism of the story, and that if no secular source ever wrote about the symbolism, then symbolism can't be mentioned in Wikipedia, but to take the article to AFD.
      When we're talking about a notable subject, though, I think our usual rules work perfectly well for this subject. We don't require independent sources for everything that gets mentioned in an article, and that's true whether you're writing about how many employees Microsoft has, or what the symbolism of the story is, or why the artist chose to put a colorful blanket behind the cow's skull. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me give a concrete example to help focus the conversation. On multiple articles I found years given for events described in the Book of Mormon. Some of those years were laughably specific. Some of those years are repeated by many, many Mormon sources. Now, I would love for there to be an article in Wikipedia about Ascribing dates to the stories in the Book of Mormon or something like that to explain exactly the weird calculus that Mormon apologists go through in arriving at these dates and why certain dates are more popular with certain Mormons than others, but the fact of the matter is that this has been so little noticed by independent sources that in many cases it has not even occurred to the authors of our own articles that putting in years might be a problem. The easiest solution I think is to excise them, but sure, it's not the only possible solution. But the solution cannot be, "let's just put those dates in the articles and call it a day." which was, as far as I can tell, the standard operating procedure. jps (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, but the solution could be "Let's put the dates in with WP:INTEXT attribution".
      The main point of this sub-thread, though, is to talk about whether we're treating all religions equally. Have you seen a similar thing in, say, Catholic articles, in which someone adds some papal pronouncement, and other editors say, "Oh, no, you can't add that unless you have a secular source, too"? I haven't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Absolutely! As I pointed out above, when there are clear fabrications (as in, for example, the case of Marian apparitions), we do the same thing. jps (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      By the way, these students got the memo about WP:INTEXT. The problem is that that often goes like this, "According to [PERSON'S NAME THAT IS UNMENTIONED EXCEPT FOR RIGHT HERE], this story is all about..." Or, worse, "According to historian [HISTORIAN]..." and you research the historian and come to find that they are a professor of history at BYU who wrote the book, "How I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true" or whatever. So, no, WP:INTEXT isn't cure-all. jps (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • NeutralYes, things are not okay. But I have serious trouble with the fact that a topic ban can cost her her job. The Banner talk 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If this ban will cause loss of employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, wouldn't this be seen as a personal attack as this is threatening the editor's livelihood? Furthermore, wouldn't the effort to have editors who have any affiliation with Brigham Young University in relation to Mormanism cause a chilling effect and diminish the improvement of articles around that topic? RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Surely you could ask these questions about any analogous remedy addressing a WiR or systematic COI. Surely these positions aren't immune from scrutiny; we're concerned about people being paid by BYU to edit Wikipedia, not every individual affiliated with them in any way. If you're making some other point, I am not able to tell what it is. Remsense诉 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Rachel Helps has been a consistent positive contributor to an essential area of religious discourse. She is professionally talented, responsive to community, an active participant on multiple open networks of movement organizers, and an ambitious trainer and supervisor for others. There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed and aims to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion. There are plenty of COI battles to fight; this isn't one of them. Ocaasi t | c 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, are you opposing the topic ban for Thmazing (not Rachel Helps)? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've moved it to the correct section. Apologies and thanks for the tip! Ocaasi t | c 20:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ocaasi, you appear to have a) !voted in the wrong section and b) failed to read anything more than the section heading, as then you would know that the issue is that their work has not been "disclosed" or "rigorous" on subjects they were professionally connected to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think "aiming to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion" is necessarily good enough. Otherwise WP:CIR bans/blocks wouldn't be a thing. Now, maybe you oppose those bans/blocks too, but I am deep in the weeds right now of seeing how Rachel Helps's students were treating material relevant to their religion and... hooboy... even if their hearts were in the right place they are doing us no favors in articlespace. I am very, very happy she has finally told her students to work in sandboxes which, if that had been happening all along I probably wouldn't be involved in this, but the conversation I'm having with her right now is one the "Open Networks of Movement Organizers" should have had with her years ago about her programming. Y'all did her dirty and I'm actually angrier at her enablers than I am at her. She honestly did not know this was coming and by running defense this whole time after multiple people have sounded alarms (just look through her usertalkpage archive), you did not give her the support she would have needed to actually make something like this work (or choose to not do it at all in case, as I suspect, it would be impossible to make this stuff work). jps (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Point of order: she knew this was coming for the last four years at least[74]. Thats what makes the refusal to improve and meet the standards/practices outlined by the community so bad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for bringing that up. You neglrct to mention that there was no administrative acton resulting from that discussion, and no community admonishment or sancation. Indeed, even the person raising the issue noted "They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable." and, later, "I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well yeah, that discussion got mobbed by people we now know had major undisclosed COIs. You're selectively cherrypicking in a way that seems misleading at best, especially considering the things you say in that discussion. We have the same thing happening there as here, Rachel Helps is informed about best practices and rejects them saying for example "In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable. I don't really have time to go back into the history of four years ago to check if that was true then, but it is absolutely not the case right now. I have been going through dozens of Book of Mormon articles that were being edited by this crew and with very few exceptions they are not NPOV nor well-sourced -- many are either WP:PROFRINGE or written in something like WP:INUNIVERSE with bizarre assumptions, turns of phrase, etc. I am finding all kinds of sources being used that have 0 citations according to Google Scholar! Rachel Helps (BYU) is defending this practice of keeping such shoddy sources in these articles much to my disappointment. jps (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ocaasi: Are you also an active participant in those open networks of movement organizers? Any conflicts you should be disclosing? Pardon the question but we seem to be having an issue with undisclosed COIs on a number of levels in this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support per Rachel Helps: "I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI." I am unable to trust this user in this topic area any longer. starship.paint (RUN) 01:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the above admission I highlighted contrasts with several opposers' rationale, and I quote from each of them: (1) How anyone can ... say her CoI is "undisclosed" (2) Banning someone for a procedural error, (3) Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, (4) There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed. starship.paint (RUN) 02:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't quote me (and others) out of context; even if you do neglect to give attrbution when doing so. What I wrote and what I was replying to when I did so is avaialble for anyone to see, at the top of this thread. What you quote Rachel saying does not negate my comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hesitant oppose, because I'm a little worried we're conflating some related but separate issues here. It is quite clear that Rachel Helps did a poor job of disclosing her COIs, and lost perspective when editing some topics on which she had a COI. It is clear that many BYU-affiliated editors have been writing poor content. And it is clear that many pages related to Mormonism have too much material from uncritical sources (but this isn't limited to Mormonism by any means). But I don't see this topic-ban addressing any of those issues, and indeed I think it might worsen them, because Rachel is better placed than many editors to help fix these issues. I do think her students need to be moved away from LDS-related topics: whether because they're being paid, or the rules of BYU, or their upbringing, or some combination thereof, there seems to be a recurring pattern of poor content that others need to fix. But at this moment I don't see how this TBAN would achieve much besides being a punishment. It wouldn't even fix the COI issue, because as best as I can tell religion is sort of incidental to those COI issues; it's just Rachel editing about things she's involved with in RL, which is a problem to be sure, but isn't limited to Mormonism. It seems to me Rachel is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and we'd do better to focus on the problematic content other editors, including her students, may have introduced. For the record, I consider myself quite firmly in favor of avoiding apologetic sources and in-universe sources for religious subjects, and have argued for this position in numerous cases involving most major religions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, this is a convincing (to me) oppose. Only reason I stay supporting the ban is that I see a topic ban from LDS would probably encourage a lot of the best-case scenario stuff to happen anyway and it might get accomplished and probably more quickly. Yes, she is well-placed to fix issues and I'm sure she wants to fix them, but maybe it would be better if she and her students focused on other things that could be done at that library. The flora and fauna of the Great Basin, for example. jps (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future (minor, because major ones receive editorial scrutiny and attention from critical sources; it's the ones that don't that seem to be the focus of the problem). Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In that case, why not topic ban just to make it clear? jps (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because there's a big difference between "shouldn't add substantive content to these pages going forward" and "isn't permitted to discuss these topics in any way shape or form". I stand by what I said above that Rachel herself is best placed to help us clean up some of this mess. Not to mention that TBANNing her when she still has active students would be quite silly; those would then be completely unsupervised. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why would that be silly? We're all completely unsupervised and these are adult in college, not children in middle or high school. They should be entirely capable of editing wikipedia on their own, we all do. Also note that while these are student employees they are not her students in the sense that they are enrolled in a class where she is their instructor. She is an employer/manager not a teacher or professor to these editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So you're describing a TBAN from articlespace? I agree that this is where most of the damage is happening--discussion spaces are much less problematic. As for your "unsupervised active student" argument, I don't understand it even a little bit. You already said "I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future." RH would still be able to supervise them to edit articles on the flora and fauna of the Great Basin. jps (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Very simply, those students are a net-positive largely because of Rachel's supervision, and as such I oppose any TBAN on those grounds until we simultaneously apply it to all students she is responsible for. She may technically be able to supervise them on non-LDS topics, but that's quite unworkable in practice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Even though the COI is greater than Mormonism this would at least serve as a warning that Helps' COI editing is causing concern. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "serve as a warning " You think this thread doesn't do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Some warnings may need to be more forcefully made than others. I sympathize with the idea that Rachel Helps (BYU) probably thought everything was fine and that the complaints that had been leveled against her over the years were nothingburgers. Unfortunately, those complaints were serving as warnings that obviously went unheeded. And, to be frank, I think people like you are to blame for enabling her and not being honest with her that this was coming. Now, maybe you didn't know this was coming, but someone in your group of WMF/GLAM/WIR in-person conference/wiknic attendees should have noticed and taken her aside and given her the advice that right now is coming down like a pile of bricks. But it didn't happen. Years went by and here we are. That's right, I am much angrier at you (and the position you are representing right now) than I am at her. jps (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Vanamonde93. While there are some issues, they don't amount to the kind of egregious problem that would warrant such dracionian action; and there is no previous sanction, let alone one wilfuly disregarded. I might suport some lesser remedy, such as mentiorship. or a probationary period after which we can reviist the matter if issues persist. But I believe Rachel's work has been shown to be - and wil contnue to be - a net benefit to this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pigsonthewing: I see this isn't your first rodeo[75]. Can I ask how opinion has changed since the first time you commented on this issue four years ago? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe we should start asking the harder question whether involvement in WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest. Because I see wagon circling. jps (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no question it does, the only question is whether its enough of a COI to be an issue (signs point to yes BTW given the wagon circling). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest - Does WMF fund this WiR? Most WiR positions these days (AFAIK) are funded by the hiring institutions. I would be shocked if the WMF were funding this one just based on the fact that it involves on-wiki editing, which has been a line for the WMF, historically. Likewise most GLAM projects have nothing to do with the WMF. If you go to a museum and say "can I tell you about Wikipedia" or "want to upload some photos to Commons" or "want to host an edit-a-thon" then you're involved with a GLAM project, regardless of who funds it or whether it involves any funding at all. The extent to which the WMF is involved with most edit-a-thons is to fund an affiliate, who then e.g. buys a couple pizzas for attendees. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that sponsored and funded are synonyms there... Anything under the banner or that is allowed to use the branding is sponsored even if there is no funding provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. While more-or-less radically open to anyone, someone (the community) ultimately does have to agree that GLAM is appropriately attached to something so that it can be called that. This is usually pro forma, but it still ends up supported. If "sponsored" is the troubling word, choose another synonym that means the same without necessarily monetary support. jps (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I started typing this yesterday, and find that Vanamonde has articulated some similar reasons, so partially "per Vanamonde". I see evidence of insufficiently disclosed COIs, evidence that RH is working to address those problems, evidence of years of good faith engagement with the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community, evidence of problematic edits made by other people, a big thorny question about independence of sourcing in religious articles that's better addressed elsewhere, and not nearly enough diffs showing violations of our content policies by RH to justify a tban.
      That said, I would strongly urge RH to set some boundaries in the WiR role and to articulate those boundaries on their user page. Our COI guideline is messy and applied inconsistently, and often with a rhetorical flourish that tries to combine the negative connotations with close COIs and the technical definition of COI that includes distant COIs we don't actually view as a problem. All of this makes things challenging for anyone who does any editing with a close or [moderate?, for lack of a better word] COI, since you have to be able to judge how much COI is going to be too much, and be prepared for that scale to slide based on other factors (as in this case, the role of money and the role of other affiliated editors). Being transparent goes a long way, but my own $0.02 is that you should absolutely abstain from editing or assigning anyone to edit an article on any subject you've received money from, that you're on the board for, that you have a nontrivial personal relationship with, etc. That's what {{Edit COI}} is for. The COI guideline doesn't require you stay away, but editing those articles while being paid is a recipe for disaster. I worry that it erodes the thin line between "the kind of paid editing we like" and "the kind of paid editing we don't like" such that the life of future WiRs will be more difficult. Enwiki's view of COI seems like it will only become more volatile.
      All in all, I think having a highly experienced Wikipedian on staff is very much a good thing. RH has the ability to translate the complicated and ever-evolving PAGs (and their interpretations) for a large community. As long as most of the problematic content edits are other people's, it would be good to have RH available to help. Besides, as I started off saying, the evidence just isn't here to justify a tban. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mostly I agree with you, however I do assign greater accountability to RH for what you're calling "other people's" edits. In these cases she is both acting as the supervisor of, and paying, these other people to make those problematic edits, which I think elevates her responsibility quite a bit. Especially given several of the articles she assigned to students were assigned because she felt she had too much of a COI to write them herself... JoelleJay (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, if you have a COI and assign/pay someone to edit it, that doesn't negate the COI. It just creates another level of PAID and/or a WP:MEAT/proxy-based COI, which is probably going to be regarded as worse insofar as it obscures the COI. Along the lines of voluntary commitments and clear articulations of boundaries that I've been talking about, I'd hope something acknowledging as much would be in there, if she hasn't addressed it already. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The best I can say is that she is asking her students to sandbox. That's the full extent of it that I've seen. She will be stepping away for a few days, but maybe you could ask her when she gets back to implement something that would make you comfortable? I'm kinda of the opinion that the more ways we try to solve this the better. jps (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy Break (3)

    • Support per Aquillion Oppose per Awilley, Rhododendrites, Vanamonde93, FyzixFighter [I admit that the comment pointed out by Starship.paint is troubling.], but at minimum a strong warning and possibly some edit-restrictions and proposals like agreements by Rhododendrites. I did not see evidence of a strong warning for the behavior when it was discovered followed by a recalcitrant refusal to comply and/or apology with repeating the behavior. (If that was the case, I would reconsider.It was per Levivich (thank you for providing this link: WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University), and I have hence changed my !vote) It appears her editing is not so much a problem as the failure to disclose the COI and paid-editing, e.g. Awilley’s comments. As for her students' editing as described by Vanamonde93, that is another matter. I explain my position on that below in response to jps and Grandpallama--I'm not sure how best to handle that. I'm not in favor of a topic ban for all of them--but consquences for those that have problematic behavior, were warned, and continued. Would support this done on case-by-case basis. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the two examples kindly provided below to see if such mass action is best.
    As much as I am opposed to paid editing, unfortunately, we allow it, so--unless I have misunderstood WP:PAID (and WP:PEW)--our greatest concern by allowing compensation for edit (or COI) is on their ability to follow WP:NPOV. If they can’t follow WP:NPOV, then the COI and paid-editing are aggravating factors favoring restriction or prohibition of editing in that area. And although non-disclosure is certainly a problem and must have consequences and accountability, it’s not clear to me there was an intent to deceive or other behavior so severe that we can’t seek an alternative accountability measures than a topic-ban.
    I don’t know what typically happens when a failed disclosure is revealed. Has it *always* been the case that such discovery resulted in a topic ban from the subject area, site ban, or similar? Is it true as Levivich opined If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion. Are there such examples?
    I believe we warn the editor, give them another chance with a short leash, and bring them right back here if it continues. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [revised 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC); 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)][reply]
    Scientology is the obvious example. jps (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing around Falun Gong has also had similar problems. Grandpallama (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස and Grandpallama: Thank you for the examples. Would you mind giving me a link or two for the mass action?
    I do ultimately think what is done with the students might best be adjudicated separately with evidence for each student involved--if that was done sufficiently already here and I glossed over it, my apologies. I was focussed on the incorrect assumption that Rachel Helps had not been warned. That really changes everthing about my thinking about both her and how it impacted the students behavior.
    Any that we know conclusively were paid and didn't disclose it, I would support a topic or site ban. I don't care if she said it was okay not to disclose.
    For any that are unpaid, it is likely she misled and incorrectly advised them about proper behavior here. So, the key question, did WE advise them about proper behavior -and- did we warn them when they crossed a line? Any student who crossed the line after OUR sufficient warning--regardless of what she might have told them to the contrary--I would support an indefinite TB for students falling into that case. Those students might realize they were duped, apologize, and come clean. I do see this as a "teachable moment", and I would hope we can retain some of the students who really are interested in following the rules and helping to build an encyclopedia that is NPOV. They may actually gain respect for us for holding her accountable.
    Any in this second category that are allowed to stay here, I'd say we give each an immediate stern warning about the result of what happened to her and why, about COI and POV-editing and the consequences for their instructor for such inappropriate behavior. Let them know they will be under scrutiny moving forward and that they are on a short leash in that topic area.--David Tornheim (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess let Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology be your light reading today. There is a lot here and I'm not sure I can help wade through it all. RH and her students have disclosed that they were paid. I am not sure there are any unpaid volunteers or not, but that would be good to clarify. The warnings about COI were thwarted in the past through certain COIN discussions that were closed with "no action". This was definitely unfortunate because here we are back today. jps (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with SCI (which was almost entirely about a situation like this), not so much with COFS (which was more about User:COFS). I think THP or MrW is better reading here than COFS. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the links. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස: Thanks for the links. I started to continue to write about what I thought should happen with the students given the fact that they are all paid, but the more time I spent trying to articulate a fair position, the more I realized it would be better to give space to those like yourself who know what typically happens in these cases and the policy involved. From first reading about this, I was inclined towards Levivich's position of not holding the students unduly responsible for poor supervision, but my concern about paid editing is closer to Aquillion. I'm stepping back.--David Tornheim (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2020 COIN - WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University - just want to make sure everyone is aware of the time this issue was discussed in 2020. Among the people claiming there was no COI editing at that time was Nihonjoe. We now know that the concerns raised then were real, some of the people defending it had undisclosed COI, and the discussion did not lead to improvement in how COI was handled by Rachel Helps. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh dear. From that thread: Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light. What she fails to say that if she started showing certain people in a negative light, she absolutely runs the risk of running afoul with her employer. I had a discussion with her about this on her talkpage and she said that she was worried about that when she started and her supervisor assured her that her students could write whatever as long as it was attributed to sources. So if a student wrote, "The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms" as a statement of fact without attribution, I am not sure they would be protected by that. But more to the point, the BYU authorities themselves are not bound by this agreement. The social control that is exerted over people who are in the employ of BYU is absolutely real. There is a reason that only a mere 5% of faculty at that college are not members of the LDS church. Y'all, there are lots of reliable sources that identify Mormonism's cult-like behaviors. It is on display here loud and clear. jps (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, since just asking nicely in 2020 (COIN) did not have any positive effect. MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is worth noting that, per WP:PROXY, this topic ban would effectively ban any student/employee to edit under the supervision of Helps in any way that bypasses the terms of the main topic ban. So it might make sense to formally extend the sanction to any and all BYU programs. MarioGom (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Detective Levivich of the COI Bureau: While I have never had any affiliation with BYU, the LDS movement, or anything adjacent, I know more people who go/went to BYU than I can count on two hands. Which means that I know not to click on soaking in the LDS template footer, I already knew that the second item in the Church Educational System Honor Code is "be honest", and I can see the irony in the editors of Second Nephi engaging in small deceptions (28:8, c'mon!). On-wiki, I spent a great deal of time about five years ago in grinding arguments at AfD over articles about non-notable LDS subjects sourced mostly to official LDS sources, church-owned media, and LDS-focused blogs. So I also have a sense of how much valuable editor time can be burned up bringing that sort of content back in line with English Wikipedia policies/guidelines.
      Rachel Helps has breached community trust while modeling behavior for students under her supervision. And it looks like we've got some content issues around assuming that stuff that's important within the LDS movement is important outside of it as well. Both of those things are bad. But a lot of the edits are good. So for us here at English Wikipedia, I think it's a matter of finding a way to rebuild trust while keeping the good parts of the BYU WiR project going.
      I support a topic ban on the WiR and all student workers, because it will clarify an important difference between 1) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to improve this encyclopedia, and 2) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to legitimize/normalize the LDS movement and institutions, and to spread its doctrines and lore by getting as much LDS-related content as possible into the highest-visibility website that still allows people to sign in and add stuff. Sometimes those goals align, but clearly there have been some problems when they don't. So for me a topic ban is not punishment, but rather a chance to recalibrate the relationship and rebuild trust. If BYU will still pay the WiR and (BYU) editors to contribute to English Wikipedia on the approximately millions of other topics, and they do that, great, let's have another conversation about lifting the topic ban once that trust is regained. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      *chomping cigar* All right, boys, this one checks out, let 'em through. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate your rational approach here. I'm not the expert, but I think the role of the BYU WiR is quite a bit more narrow than just 1) improving the encyclopedia and sideways from 2) legitimizing and spreading Mormonism. Rachel would be a better person to clarify, but I understood her role more along the lines of facilitating access to and improving content related to some of the more unique collections owned by the BYU library. Most of those collections will probably have some connection to Mormonism.
      One of the things I've appreciated most about Rachel's editing is the nitty gritty source work that she does. For example: many editors are somewhat sloppy with sources... They'll take a sourced statement and modify it a bit without changing the meaning too much and move the source somewhere, maybe to the end of a sentence or clause or paragraph. Then someone else will come along a year later and do something similar. Eventually you end up with sources that are completely disconnected from the statement they were meant to support, or that original statement may be gone altogether. I've seen Rachel fixing long term problems like that, as well as immediately cleaning up after other editors when they move soures around in a sloppy way. I've also seen her cleaning up copyvios, circular references, wrong page numbers, random [citation needed] templates, and other tedious gnomish work that so many of us avoid, ignore, or take for granted. I would love to see her be able to continue this kind of work in the topic area where she has expertise.
      I think it's clear from the above that the community agrees that Rachel fell short in disclosing COI when editing and creating articles about people and organizations close to her. I personally think those shortcomings were exacerbated by scope creep, unclarity, and even contradictions in our own guidelines and expectations, but let's set that aside. There are also a lot of people who see problems in the work of her student editors, which I'm not familiar with myself, so I'll take that at face value. That suggests a lack of training, supervision, etc. on Rachel's part. I have not, though, seen significant criticisms of Rachel's own edits.
      So my question to you is: would you support some kind of narrower sanction that directly addresses the above problems but still allows Rachel to do her job as WiR and make the kind of helpful edits I mentioned above? That might include a ban on directly creating articles and a ban on editing articles where she has a (well-defined) COI. Or maybe even a ban on editing articles outside of citation management. And likely more strict restrictions on her students. I don't know what would work best, and some workshopping with Rachel would probably be helpful when she comes back from break. Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rhododendrites: Okay, I'm not going to let this excuse that "it was all her students" slide anymore. RH has made some absolutely atrocious edits over the last few months. Fram, above, documented the result in the actual article of Second Nephi, but here they are the diffs from her:
      These diffs are all inclusive of an extreme amount of unduly weighted apologetics content from obscure Mormon Theologians. This also, infruriatingly, includes apologias for the abject and abhorrent racism in the text. That’s right, RH is trying to apologia away the racism in her faith’s scripture. Lest that not be enough evidence for you:
      • [81] Here she is whitewashing away the fact that Joseph Smith instituted racist dogma.
      I'm sure she saw nothing wrong with that. It's the frog in the boiling pot of water. In the LDS Church, this kind of game-playing is what happens as a matter of course. We are not the LDS church. We have a standard that is not apologetics. jps (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @jps: The first 5 diffs you cite are not apologetics, they're analyzing how different themes/ideas in the Book of Mormon "Second Nephi" have been interpreted and have influenced LDS thought and belief over time. As far as I can tell her citations are to secondary reliable sources from reputable publishers. In the 6th diff she is reverting a blatantly POV IP edit and attempting to make a clarification along the way. The original sentence, before the IP's edit, incorrectly stated/implied that Smith taught that dark skin was a curse for "premortal unrighteousness". That's false, and you can verify that by scrolling down to the body of the article and doing a Ctrl+F for "1844". Apparently Rachel had missed that the sentence could be read in a different way: that Smith had taught it was a curse, and that LDS leaders after Smith had taught that the curse was for "premortal unrighteousness". Fortunately 2 days later, editor Pastelitodepapa (the article's original author) came along and removed all ambiguity. [82] This is a normal interaction on Wikipedia. People write ambiguous sentences. People misinterpret those sentences and make mistakes. People fix the mistakes. ~Awilley (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Awilley They absolutely are apologetics. What they are doing is trying to recast/reframe a discussion of this book in a way to encourage understanding the text as though it really happened and offer apologia for the ways in which it clearly runs into anachronism and error. Reliability is always contextual and the context here is that these sources are being used to support preaching and proselytization (that's their raison d'etre). The claim that the IP edit was "blatantly POV" as absurd. The IP edit is correct. Joseph Smith supported the racism of the Mormon church as you even show was confirmed later on. RH reverting that edit was acting in accordance with her faith and not in accordance with the facts. Whether intentional or not, the whole point is that this is a paid editor gatekeeping at Book of Mormon articles, paid by a Mormon faith-based institution to edit our encyclopedia. She needs to be held to a higher standard. This is faith-based POV pushing. WP:Civil POV-pushing, but POV pushing all the same. jps (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @jps, You've got it backwards. Take a closer look at the IP edit. It most certainly is incorrect and POV. Read the edit summary. Note the phrase "...in the church we believe..." Rachel was not the one trying to whitewash in that interaction, she was reverting a Mormon IP who was erasing a big part of the racist history (premortal sin theory) and pushing the modern LDS POV. Feel free to hat this as "extended discussion" so it doesn't bog down the AN/I. ~Awilley (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      AH! You are right that the IP edit was bad... but now RH's edit is even worse. She removed the mention of Joseph Smith, I guess in deference to the sensibilities. This is also a misleading edit summary. This is not just a revert. This is an introduction of a whitewash of RH's own making! And you're still defending her? jps (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, she most likely read the sentence as "...Joseph Smith taught that dark skin was a sign of God's curse for premortal unrighteousness" and tried to correct that. Joseph Smith never taught that. It was after Smith's death that people came up with the "premortal unrighteousness" garbage. ~Awilley (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, Smith did it too: [83]. I know it's popular to give him a pass. The LDS apologetic line. But, again, Wikipedia is not for apologetics. jps (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The earliest mention I can find of that rationale is from Orson Hyde in 1844 or 1845. I just looked up the reference in the paper you linked. The reference was to Brodie's No Man Knows My History page 173-4, which I happen to have on my shelf. Brodie does indeed suggest that the idea originated with Smith, but she doesn't provide any evidence to back that up. Her only citation for that is to a 1845 speech/pamphlet by Orson Hyde. This may be part of why Brodie now has a reputation for going beyond what the actual evidence supports, and why her book is listed as "additional considerations" on the project page instead of "generally reliable". Or maybe I'm missing something. Either way, Rachel Help's edit summary said she was summarizing the article, and that is indeed what the article says. If you think the article is incorrect, a discussion on the talk page would be the logical next step. ~Awilley (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you really unable to see the issue here? "Oh, the person who claims that Smith taught about this curse doesn't back it up because it was only found in a pamphlet by Orson Hyde." Forget it. At this point, you're running interference. jps (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic-ban - This smacks to me of the same type of COI editing that led to the creation of WP:GS/CRYPTO and the SCI contentious topic, and I get the sense that the scope of this will lead to COI including a CTOP of some sort. The long-term deception and obvious lack of clue as to what best-practices for a COI entails are both extremely problematic, and either on their own would have justified a topic-ban with or without a CTOP designation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I am an atheist with a long-time interest in world religions who wrote a Good Article about the Laie Hawaii Temple in 2008. In the intervening years, I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia, only my fellow non-theists and atheists, one of which, Horse Eye's Black, destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting.[84] Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ?? That diff shows HEB removed the citations to one dubiously-reliable apologist source, he didn't even remove any content; saying he "destroyed" your work is a pretty groundless aspersion. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He removed a reference to an older version of the material because he failed to look at the date of the source, thereby making it unsourced and eligible for delisting. Furthermore, he removed links that others had added, non-controversial links to BYU computer scientist Rick Satterfield, who had spent years collecting and formulating a database for LDS. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't matter what version of the material was being cited when the underlying source for all versions is unreliable. Even if the author was a "BYU computer scientist", which he obviously isn't, that would be irrelevant since exemptions to SPS require recognized academic subject-matter expertise. JoelleJay (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree. In 2004, when user Gerald Farinas originally added the external link to the article,[85] it was in wide use in LDS articles. When I arrived to the article in 2007 and tagged the source as unreliable (at the time referred to synonymously as "verify credibility", whose history has beeen now lost)[86], another user started a discussion on the talk page in response to my tagging. They assured me that the source was reliable. I looked at it, and found that the "about page" said that Rick Satterfield created the site as a project for his computer science classes before getting his computer science degree in 2001. In the ensuing years it had become a go-to hobbyist site for statistics about LDS architecture, which is exactly how it was used in the article. It was not used to make religious claims, it was not used to make political claims, it was used only to make factual statements about architecture. In this regard, and per the discussion, I acknowledged that it met the exemption (this was 2007) and compromised by removing the tag, a tag that I originally added. So, to recap, I was the one who originally questioned the reliability, I was the one who discussed it on the talk page with another user who argued for its use, and I was the one who engaged in the art of compromise to allow the source to be used in a specific, narrow way. I was not, however, a drive-by editor like HEB, who just arrived to the article one day and removed the source and the content on a whim because I didn't like the words in the URL. Keep in mind, in the ensuing years at some point, long after I had left the article, the URL had changed from the neutral-titled "ldschurchtemples.com" to "churchofjesuschristtemples.org". And I continue to maintain that the underlying source for all versions was not unreliable. And it's not irrelevant that Satterfield collected the data for his computer science classes. BYU has numerous, front-facing student sites today that are and continue to be reliable sources for Wikipedia. Like ldschurchtemples.com, which provided a unique resource in the past for obscure archeological data, I continue to draw upon research from Brigham Young University for articles I write. For example, I recently wrote Flathead Lake Biological Station, which cites writer Abbey Buckham of Northern Arizona University, who wrote the most comprehensive history of the station that is currently online. Her work was published by the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies which is part of BYU Research Institutes. So no, I don't agree with you, and I will continue to draw upon BYU students, graduates, and their research for my articles. Viriditas (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem to be ignoring my entreaties on your usertalkpage, so maybe I have to respond here.
      I think, as others are trying to explain to you, you are making a strawman argument. There is sincere and strong evidence that this group has been skewing dozens of pages on the Book of Mormon in a very particular way that is going to take a lot of work to clean up.
      This proposal for a TBAN is not an attempt to ban everything coming out of BYU. We aren't even asking to end the WiR/GLAM/Paid Editing program. In fact, what you ask at the end about Flathead Lake Biological Station is exactly the sort of thing I would hope that RH's students would have been working on instead of the sloppy and over-detailed exegesis they've been focusing on for the last months. Not everything that comes out of BYU is about LDS.
      Yeah, with a TBAN you're not going to get RH or her students to help you write about LDS temples. Sorry. But given the streams of awful I've been wading through in the past few days trying to make sense of what is going on at Book of Mormon pages, I think that this sort of collateral damage is likely more than worth it, sorry to say. Your happy editing on one article does not excuse the 100s of articles that are absolute messes. That said, this TBAN would make it more likely that you could benefit from BYU student editors on articles like Flathead Lake Biological Station. This is likely to be a win for you since those are far and away the more common articles I see you working on than the LDS temples. jps (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @ජපස: If RH and the students were TBanned, would the students really be more likely to edit in other topic areas?
      User:Heidi Pusey BYU's conflict of interest statement on her user page currently reads (emphases added):
      I am employed and paid by the Harold B. Lee Library to edit Wikipedia pages about the Book of Mormon on behalf of Brigham Young University. I am a student employee of Rachel Helps (BYU) and I specialize in research for early Book of Mormon studies as well as literary studies of the book. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I am extensively familiar with the Book of Mormon but seek to edit with a neutral viewpoint.
      Heidi's employment appears to be specific to Book of Mormon pages. It is on behalf of BYU, which makes me wonder about the academic freedom questions raised elsewhere. Isn't this declaration inconsistent with Wikipedia goals like NPOV writing without an agenda? Further, if Heidi's specialty is in this topic area, would she be interested in paid non-Book of Mormon editing... and would BYU be interested in paying for it?
      I wonder whether a TBAN will actually produce the outcome you describe? 1.141.198.161 (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      From what I understand in brief discussion with RH, this was set by her in discussion with RH. This topic focus could be changed. But good to confirm with RH that this really is the case, for sure. jps (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi. I am currently in the process of changing my students' pages they are editing to pages that are unrelated to the LDS church or BYU. I will be changing Heidi's assignment when I see her later today. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rachel Helps (BYU): Thanks for that information, that sounds like a wise decision in the circumstances. Heidi has commented at her user talk page that she did not intend the phrase "on behalf of Brigham Young University" to be taken literally, which is good to hear / know. I can see how this phrase might be chosen by an employee without considering the implications, and Heidi has acted to change the wording. I suggest that you check for any similar phrasings because, in an environment of heightened attention and scrutiny, they can create an impression that is unhelpful. In fact, I encourage you to reflect carefully on how your subordinates' words on user pages might be interpreted by outsiders. I doubt that BYU would be entirely comfortable with a statement that every action of a student editor was made on its behalf, no matter how well intentioned the student or the statements. In my various positions working for Universities, I would not have presented my every action as on their behalf, and I suspect that you would not present yourself that way either.

      On Heidi's comment that her employment was specific to Book of Mormon topics, is her position (prior to the changes you are about to implement) actually tied to working on that specific topic area? If so, did focus on a narrow (compared to the scope of your library and WP broadly) that is squarely within the area of COI not raise any concerns for you or anyone connected with WiR, etc? I ask because, in charting a course forwards, it can be helpful to understand what has happened to now and how it happened. From your perspective, were any concerns raised and adequately (or inadequately, in retrospect) addressed? What might have been done differently by WiR or WP or others to have avoided the present situation?

      I'm willing to assume that there were good intentions throughout this process, but can't avoid feeling that something (or multiple things) should have brought these issues into focus long ago. It looks to me like a systemic problem, made worse by some instinctive / reactive responses where considered reflection was needed. Does this seem accurate / inaccurate / partially accurate, from your perspective? Any other thoughts? Thanks, 1.141.198.161 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Heidi's job title is Student Wikipedia Editor. When I hired this batch of students last fall, I did tell them that I wanted to start a project to work on Book of Mormon pages (an initiative started by me). However, I hired my students based on their writing experience, not based on any specific experience with Book of Mormon topics. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, so please ping me again if you have a follow-up question. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Satterfield does not have subject matter expertise as recognized by strong citations by academics in academic publications. Therefore his SPS is not reliable. Everything else you've said is irrelevant, though I'll note that student projects simply hosted by the university are also never reliable as published academic work and I would hope you haven't been adding them as sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because you've never encountered any issues before doesn't mean Helps is innocent. Have you read anything in this thread and the corresponding thread?? vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What does that have anything to do with the sanction being proposed here or the user it's being proposed against? I see virtually nothing in that !vote rationale that actually addresses such matters; the only thing that might come anywhere close is the vague anecdotal claim I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia. Left guide (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      First of all how do you know that I am a "fellow non-theists and atheists"? Second that source may look legitimate but its actually a non-expert self published source unaffiliated with the LDS Church, the LDS editors actually agreed that it was a source that should be removed/improved. I didn't destroy anything or change its eligibility, looking at other articles you've significantly authored (for example Claude AnShin Thomas) it looks like the issue may be with your sourcing practices and not mine. I apologize for causing you distress but I also have no idea what that would do with your vote unless you're voting in an AN/I discussion based solely on spiting another editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're mistaken again. My sourcing is entirely reliable, and is accurately reflected in the final GA review.[87] As can be seen in that link, the sources you removed[88] were not the versions of the sources I originally added,[89] however both sources support the same, accurate information. You neglected to actually read the article you edited, because if you had you would have noticed that the citation you removed said "Retrieved 2007-07-17", which refers only to this version supporting the material. You removed the newer version instead, which had been revised. You then left a citation needed tag in its place. As of today, there is a more current database listing on the revised site.[90] You couldn't be bothered with any of this, of course. One wonders if your poor judgment here is reflective of your other baseless criticism, such as that over at Claude AnShin Thomas, which has no known problems either. One wonders how much this kind of bias infects the rest of this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But churchofjesuschristtemples.com/churchofjesuschristtemples.org is a non-expert self published source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Opinions differ, and policies and guidelines dynamically change over time. When the article was written, those sources were acceptable, and the author was a computer scientist at BYU who had created the only site on the internet that collected and maintained statistical data about the temples. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think they ever were a computer scientist at BYU... I see a bachelor's degree in computer science from BYU but no teaching or research position. Today that source is not acceptable and I don't think that it was when the article was written either. Looking at the talk page it looks like the reliability was actually challenged all the way back in 2007 (Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple/Archive 1#Credibility of source). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, questioned by me. Did you read the discussion? Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did... Didn't see a consensus that the source was reliable. I'm actually confused as to how that source remained in the article after that discussion. I also double checked and he was never a computer scientist at BYU (and even if he was I don't see how that would contribute to him being a subject matter expert in this context). And again none of this explains your vote here, even if everything you say is completely true your vote makes no sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, you are confused. I am the one who questioned the source in the first place and originally tagged it. As that discussion indicates, another editor arrived to discuss it, and I removed the tag. Should I have disagreed with myself? That seems to be what you are saying here. Viriditas (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I must be confused, because this none of this substantiates "destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting" nor does it substantiate that the author was a a computer scientist at BYU nor does it explain what any of this has to do with the larger discussion (besides possibly the author's BYU connection?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are free to see my new comments up above that address your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ignoratio elenchi. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 17:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Saying that every problem you've encountered on Wikipedia has come from non-theists and atheists is quite a remarkable statement. How are you able to determine the religious affiliation of your fellow editors? And even in the unlikely event that it is true, what relevance does it have for this issue? The question at hand is about one particular editor, not all LDS members or all atheists. CodeTalker (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Viriditas: woah, I just noticed that you're referring to me as "Horse Eye's Black" in both of the original comments here. What is that supposed to mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It means my keyboard is broken Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How does a broken keyboard result in Horse Eye's Black? Its not a misspelling, its a pipe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like a copy and paste from a typo. Viriditas (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok sure. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You probably need to take a step back from this discussion if you're looking this hard for implied slights. Parabolist (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I would have suggested a warning, but in light of the extensive COIN discussion from 2020 that appears to have not resolved this issue, I think we'd just be back here sooner or later for another rodeo.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, its not a new phenomena. They were warned in 2020, clearly warned by admin. scope_creepTalk 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I find the general oppose reasonings to be particularly uncompelling and that it does not adequately address the evidence presented in this and the prior discussion. The attempt to present this discussion as a referendum on theist vs. non-theist editors completely misses the point of the evidence provided. The only oppose rationale thus far that strikes me as valid at all is Vanamond93's comment, but I ultimately agree more with jps's rejoinder to Vanamonde93's perspective. signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support However much good faith (no pun intended) can be ascribed, this a situation which needs to be addressed directly. Treating this as a generalised COI issue to be addressed via a review of policy/guidelines elsewhere will not address the specific instutional arrangement which is engendering systemic failures with regard to core tenets - neutrality, due, fringe and reliable, independent sourcing. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. The opposes all miss the point entirely; paid editing that directly touches mainspace is basically never acceptable. This is not a case where "positive contributions" matter, not at all. Even if done with the best of intentions, it completely distorts our processes; the fact always remains that someone whose paycheck is dependent on an organization is not going to make edits that might get them fired. Even the absolute best, most well-intentioned edits, otherwise policy-compliant in every way, will distort the balance of articles when made in a systematic way by large numbers of editors whose views are all distorted in the same way by the same financial incentive. Therefore, "they've made positive contributions" is never a defense against a WP:COI issue. It is simply never acceptable to seriously edit mainspace in areas where your employer has a strong perspective or vested interest. If this were any other organization, that would be obvious - would we accept the arguments above for an editor paid by Amazon or Microsoft or OpenAI or some cryptocurrency startup, who wanted to edit pages obviously relevant to those topics? From the Democratic and Republican parties, or from individual political think tanks who hire and send in numerous articulate, intelligent editors who share their views? How is this different? And how, exactly, could volunteer editors maintain neutrality in the face of that? Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian in Residence isn't meant to be an exception to these rules - per the description on Meta In this context, there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution. Furthermore, look at the examples there - it's meant to be an uncontroversial role for museum curators and the like, not for a church to employ people making sweeping sorts of edits on topics related to their faith or for a political think-tank to employ someone making edits about their politics. I think that we might want to look at some of the related policies in order to tighten them up and make them more clear, if people are somehow confused about all this, but this particular example is so far over the line that an immediate topic-ban is obvious. EDIT: Support shifted to strong to emphasize how strongly I feel that none of the rationales people are presenting are policy-based and how important it is to establish that they carry no weight. --Aquillion (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aquillion, I agree in general with your take on this. COI and PE are often issues that result in editing that skews away from our principles, policies and guidelines. However, in this instance Rachel and her Posse (or crew) were never concerned about "making edits that might get them fired." Take a look at this conversation here [91] (Section title "Academic Freedom"). Essentially, throughout the whole Q & A it becomes clear that none of these editors are constrained by fear of an employer or policy. It doesn't take long to read. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no difference to me at all, for three reasons. First, WP:COI is unequivocal that the appearance of a COI is sufficient; it does not matter one iota how thoroughly someone is convinced (or can convince others) that they are capable of being impartial. It is a red line with no exceptions. Second, this is because influence can be subtle and sometimes not even obvious to those exercising it; words are cheap, actually making the people they paid to edit Wikipedia impartial is... impossible. Third, most importantly, even if someone manages to adhere rigorously to that freedom, and even if they are flawless immaculate saints incapable of ever considering who pays their paychecks, paid editing still allows the employer to "stack the deck" on particular subjects by hiring people to edit prolifically simply because they know what they believe and what areas they will edit in. This doesn't even have to be intentional; it's no different from the principle of WP:CANVASSing - unless they're hiring people totally at random, they're going to be stacking the deck based on who they hire and what pool they hire from. There are no situations where someone should be getting paid to make nontrivial mainspace edits on Wikipedia, or even to contribute to discussions without the extremely rigid restrictions placed on disclosed COIs (even those restrictions are truthfully too loose for me, but in this case no one even paid lip service to them.) This is actually important. Pushing back against COIs is vital to keeping Wikipedia functional; most pages and topic areas only have a few dozen really active users, or a few hundred at most, and even they have no real hope of keeping up with editors whose entire job is to edit Wikipedia. If we didn't maintain a hard line, any topic area that was targeted with paid editing would be rapidly drowned in it, with every discussion and every effort at consensus-building dominated by whoever their employer decided to employ. There's no such thing as someone being a "good egg" as a paid editor, because the problem is the entire structure behind their editing and what it would mean for Wikipedia if allowed to proliferate. --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I agree with your concerns about paid editing--we should get rid of it. I've never bought the argument that making it "ok" means that paid editors are more likely to divulge COI. Case in point here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, English Wikipedia has done a gang buster job, in the past to get individuals who could contribute positively, on this platform to chase them away. The individual editor in question has done a great job with bringing individuals who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy to improving content on this encyclopedia. Yet, there is this effort to limit that effort. What does this say about our community, but to enforce the view that English Wikipedia is not neutral, is exclusionary, and doesn't want individuals who might not align a certain way onto this encyclopedia, especially if they contribute within spaces which certain alignments oppose.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy ... no doubt an unintended Freudian slip; but that's precisely the problem, institutional devotion here has created a systemic inability to edit according to our policies and guidelines. It's irrelevant what one's intention is; the cascading effect of the relationships have created a swathe of articles and edits which are non-compliant with our tenets. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't have tenets on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines. These were applied to the best of Rachel's, her colleagues', and students's ability most of the time. And actually, their efforts and goals were the opposite of institutional devotional editing. There may be some obscure Mormon religious-character-articles that don't have good coverage. But, that is an oversight that is happening in other areas of Wikipedia in a likewise fashion. And I have to say, I have not seen you involved in any of the recent discussions on LDS/Book of Mormon talk pages. So rather than denigrate the hard work of other editors I recommend pitching in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This response exemplifies the problem. This is not about well-intentioned mistakes - this is about a systemic COI failure to ensure neutrality, reliable sourcing and due. Every editor has a right to be concerned about this issue, irrespective of their efforts towards the particular topic, precisely because of the far reaching effects beyond the topic. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. What Gamaliel said. Also, I would like to support this Wikipedian in Residence, and acknowledge their contributions. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Would you also like to acknowledge the concerns raised below (now within a collapse) by BilledMammal, which were also posted on your talk page? Remsense诉 19:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure. Accepting or declining in-person meetings in the workplace is pretty standard in my world. By contrast, almost every single conversation in this online environment seems like nothing but trouble. I thought that meeting a person with shared interests and a public-facing job, in a public place might be a way to clear up misunderstandings. I did not know that suggesting people try talking things over in person is considered unacceptable here. Now that I think it over a little more, I suppose that if this is literally "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," gosh knows what sort of awful, terrible person might show up at a library. Perhaps someone would delete the earlier remark for me? I've always respected the LDS for their wholesome lifestyles (even if I'm too attached to coffee to ever become LDS myself), and wouldn't want to create difficulties for the folks at BYU.-- Oliveleaf4 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Rachel is a positive contributor. Sure there are missteps, but those can be worked through without going to the nuclear option. Similar to Rhododendrites, I would strongly urge Rachel to institute strict standards for the content she and her students produce and to keep a very close editorial eye on her students' edits, but overall I see her work as a net positive. Curbon7 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support provided that the topic ban is interpreted in such a way as not to preclude commonsensically non-church-related topics such as the Bakemono no e which according to a presentation here [92] she worked with. All university libraries have a lot of holdings, and there are many ways she could continue to be a productive WiR without getting into Mormon archaeology and stuff. I also think some sort of restrictions or advisories/warnings for her student helpers could be worth considering.

    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm the one who opened the COIN in 2020. If Rachel would have simply agreed that she and her students would place a COI notice on article talk pages, I wouldn't be here. But she repeatedly resorted to arguing that it wasn't strictly required, so she wasn't going to comply with the request that she do so. Multiple other WiRs came in arguing that requiring her to do so would threaten the WiR system; they're here, too, opposing this. I hate to lose the BYU folks' contributions, which I believe are generally helpful, and which we'll probably lose if there's a Tban. But until Rachel agrees to disclose on article talk, even though not required to, I'm a support for a topic ban from LDS articles for Rachel and her students. Rachel Helps (BYU), please, just agree to disclose. It's such a small request. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for Thmazing

    On the basis of this discussion, I think we need to topic ban User:Thmazing from pages related to Association of Mormon Letters broadly construed. jps (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors may also consider a wider topic ban on Mormonism. Note the time of this post, editors commenting before 04:13, 15 March 2024 will not have seen this post. starship.paint (RUN) 04:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support This user has a large number of COIs, and refuses to discuss them. They are still editing, but will no longer engage in questions regarding editing about themself and their friends. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As he is a former president of AML and current Managing Editor of its journal Irreantum, I see Thmazing as the "highest-ranking" editor in this COI group (that I know of), and thus the most culpable. Far more culpable than Rachel Helps, who is listed as AML's Discord Admin (and I believe is a current or past board member). Thmazing should have been the one to disclose, require the disclosure, or otherwise reign in, all this undisclosed COI editing coming from AML board members, staff, and other associated editors. A TBAN from AML is really too little IMO, I would at least TBAN from all of Mormonism (same scope as Rachel Helps) for the same reasons: prevent him from not only editing about AML but also about its "product," which is Mormon literature, and thus by extension, Mormonism itself. Heck, due to his high ranking nature and his particularly obstructive involvement in this entire fiasco, I'd also just support a straight site ban. But support as certainly better than nothing. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is phrased a little confusingly... until the end of that paragraph, I thought that you had declared yourself the current managing editor of Irreantum.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That would have been a real plot twist! 😂 Thanks for pointing it out, I added a couple words to clarify. Levivich (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per sound analysis above. I looked at his last article Draft:Mike Pekovich, originally created in the mainspace: it is blatantly promotional ("His work on woodcraft [...] has influenced thousands of woodworkers over decades") as much as badly sourced (two non-independent primary sources). Cavarrone 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) ADDENDUM: I also support a wider topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed, per Levivich, starship.paint and Steve Quinn. Also based on my striked content I suspect there could be other COIs in the mix (in addition to some obvious WP:CIR issues). --Cavarrone 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: - So yes, it is true. Thmazing has been citing content with their blogposts. This is disconcerting. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gamaliel: @Oliveleaf4: I think you may have voted in the wrong section? This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, @Viriditas: might want to re-evaluate the "per Gamaliel" vote. ~Awilley (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gamaliel: @Oliveleaf4: I also think you may have voted in the wrong section! This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, @Viriditas: might want to re-evaluate the "per Gamaliel" vote. ---06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Steve Quinn (talk)[reply]
    @Awilley: @Steve Quinn: Thank you! You are correct, and I've moved my !vote accordingly. Gamaliel (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Gamaliel. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as per Gamaliel also. Telling the BYU Wikimedian in Residence not to edit on Mormonism? We don't want to go there, folks. If we need to work with them on some aspects of wiki policy, let's not harangue them online, let's arrange for an experienced person to meet up with them. I might have a chance to go out to Utah next year, and I'd be happy to sit down with them and edit. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why don't we want to "go there"? What are you implying? The community has been trying to "work with them" on aspects of policy for years. It hasn't worked. Why are you so confident your in-person visit is going to be successful? Do you have a track record of success with such things? jps (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is creepy to offer to meet in real life with editors you don't know to help them avoid a potential topic ban. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 Goldsztajn (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fwiw this is a WiR at a university whom anyone can walk up to and not some editor editing off their couch at home so if anything the suggestion raises the opposite sort of sussiness. Anyway… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      One word: safeguarding. One wants to interact with another Wikipedian one does so on Wikipedia or at an event where Wikipedians have *themselves* *chosen* to attend. We should not be treating casual contact amongst editors in RL with anything other than the most serious concern for unintended consequences. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Am attempting to support efforts by a WiR, not give them a bad time! (Have attempted to comment in the other section.)Oliveleaf4 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The evidence is clear here as well. Currently this editor is a net-negative to Wikipedia and cost us time and energy. I cannot understand this continual impulse to let folk get away with bad behaviour and breaking policy that are clearly understood and followed by the majority of editors. That was a long conversation that was held in 2020 by administration, it was very clearly stated. Combined with the analysis done recently, makes it clear as day. scope_creepTalk 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is quite rude and suggests an egregious misreading of my editing history. Some cherrypicked flaws in my editing past do not a "net-negative to Wikipedia" make. Has anyone actually looked at my entire editing history or are you just believing what you're told?
      I appreciate the fellow above who admitted he had made erroneous assumptions about an article I had started but his errors were more numerous than the one he apologized for.
      I know this isn't the place for it, but I feel obliged to point out that what's happening here is largely an on-Wikipedia doxxing of people who, in good faith, made it possible to do so.
      (Also, I might add that the idea that I've only heard about Fram in one Discord server and that you can guess which one it is is charming. She has quite the reputation as I'm sure many of you know.)
      Anyway, carry on. If you could do it without the ad hominem attacks, however, I would appreciate it. Thmazing (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Same general rationale as my !vote regarding Rachel Helps, but with Thmazing there appears to be even less mitigating circumstances as they have not engaged with this discussion in a remotely satisfactory fashion, whereas RH has at least attempted to make amends. signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Mormonism, per above. BilledMammal (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm here particularly because of the refusal to acknowledge the problem. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I haven’t yet decided what I think about the proposal for Rachel Helps, but given the level of incivility and defensiveness Thmazing shows on their user talk, combined with their substantive behavior with content and CoI, I think a topic ban might be warranted. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed. Even on top of the obvious COI issue for the reasons explained in my reply regarding Helps above, their replies on their talk page about it are not acceptable and show both an unwillingness to assume good faith and a WP:BATTLEGROUND view of Wikipedia, which is particularly incompatible with COI editing: This they thought better of and replaced, but the replacement is no better. I understand your feelings may be hurt and I don't want to pile on and Wikipedia is not a sport where people should strive to win or lose and I apologize if I made you feel you needed to win are not acceptable ways to respond to a serious concern. This is in some ways even worse - I'm particularly concerned by I think you might feel better about things if you report me. I mean—you're Fram! You have a reputation to maintain! (I was lurking on a Discord channel earlier today and you came up. "What a coincidence!" I said to myself) coupled with I'm not sure how you all ended up here (perhaps you're on another Discord channel complaining about me?) - I'm not sure how to interpret those two sentences other than, well, 1. Thmazing believes that people coordinate Wikipedia edits on Discord, and that this is common and normal enough to immediately leap to that assumption when COI concerns come up, and 2. Thmazing themselves is in a Discord channel which was discussing Fram around that time. The logical conclusion, to me, seems to be that Thmazing leaped to that conclusion because that is, in fact, the nature of the discord channel referenced in the first sentence, and they assume that everyone else is doing the same thing because they're approaching Wikipedia as a battleground. --Aquillion (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In fairness, we did have a massive controversy which involved harassment and Fram, and all that seemed to come from that is that Fram has a reputation.... for being a punching bag whenever he inserts himself in anything involving any sort of controversy and getting fucked over whenever his name comes up in conjunction with anything remotely near WP:HARASS-related content (though in this case I will defend his block as justified, just not as performed by Primefac). This is not to justify Fram's actions or exonerate Thmazing, whose actions smack of EEML or WTC just from a brief glance, and get just as ugly as them if scrutinised. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thmazing has been creating a lot of redirects such as "John grisham" (note the capitalization) and seems to be unaware that these are superfluous (unless I’m very much mistaken) due to case insensitivity. Is there a way to bulk RfD like multiple AfDs? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RadioactiveBoulevardier: - actually Thmazing is correct in this regard, so no deletions should occur. For example, our current TFA George Griffith versus George griffith. starship.paint (RUN) 12:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? If I put “George griffith” into the search bar and press the button (ignoring suggestions ofc), I get sent to the article. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, we did different ways, @RadioactiveBoulevardier:. I typed the URL with "George_griffith". [93] starship.paint (RUN) 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, there’s a reason these redirects are not created systematically. Still, I suppose they’re cheap. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not particularly interested in defending myself here even though a lot of what has been said is more game-of-telephone than evidence and would never hold up in a court of law. It also makes me sad how corrosive discussions can become. That said, I thought I might add a couple bits of information for consideration.

    1) I was editing AML-related articles long before I was involved in the AML. I agree that's no excuse for failing to disclose COI when it became a thing, but honestly, it never really occurred to me. I was just doing what I'd been doing before.

    2) Based on the specific edits that have been used as evidence against me, it seems like we're talking about maybe a dozen of my roughly 8000 total edits---or 0.15%. Even if we quadruple my infractions, which seems a number higher than likely, it's less than half of one percent of my total edits. So some of the hyperbole about me being a threat to the very existence of Wikipedia is wild.

    3) Something I've noticed in these discussions before is that a few facts can become monstrous through snowballing assumptions. I would encourage anyone who thinks #2 is a lie to please check my contribs for yourself. I genuinely consider myself a gnome and a fairy and you'll see that I turn Wikipedia green. In a wide variety of subjects.

    4) This conversation makes me think Wikipedia needs to have a new conversation about what COI even means. We have some cowboys that go around enforcing, imo, absurdly broad standards. I'm not sure, by their logic, that I should be allowed to edit places or people within the United States, or with the arts of any sort, or possibly things that metabolize. I know you all think I'm exaggerating here. Good! I agree!

    I don't anticipating posting here again. I've found that a few people (not you, of course, other people) just want a fight, while I believe in a troll-free Wikipedia. I suppose if I hadn't identified myself, none of this would have been possible. But I'm not afraid to be identified. And I'm up for being called out on my errors. What I'm not cool with is people saying things like I'm a net-negative on Wikipedia. That's not the Wikipedia culture I know. And it's not representative of the work I've done here over the last 20 years (17 with this account). Thank you for reading. Thmazing (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I know I said I didn't plan to butt in again, but about an hour after I posted, a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity and describing me and my evil ways and nefarious means. (I will not be providing a link.) But the thing that made me laugh was his primary argument that I have a financial motivation in all this and it made me wonder if that's what everyone here has been thinking? Finances have always been the way I think of COI and you won't find edits where I cross that line. See if you can see what these have in common:
    Money made editing Irreantum: $0
    Money made as president of AML: $0
    Money made editing Peculiar Pages: $0
    Money made editing Wikipedia: $0
    I suppose in my mind these are all part of my efforts to make the world better using the tools I have. Anyway, if that was the (unspoken) subcutaneous concern, I thought I should address it. Thmazing (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say "a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity" you do realize all that information can be found on your userpage? Jessintime (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thmazing: - first, money doesn’t have to be made while editing. The very existence of the Wikipedia pages, in a promotional way, may generate money for the entities. That isn’t my biggest concern, though. That would be that within the last year you literally cited your own blog, multiple times [94] within the Elias: An Epic of the Ages. One month after that you declared that it was your blog [95]. Citing yourself is blindingly inappropriate. starship.paint (RUN) 02:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've copped to that and apologized and not touched the article since. I hope that these (rare) instances will lead to other editors improving the articles with sources they see as appropriate. But of course I'm not going back to them myself. I can't imagine a better way to get more people mad at me.
      Also, I hope if I'm not responding quickly there aren't more accusations of me avoiding the conversation. This is a dreadfully busy moment for me in almost every way. Plus, most of the commentary hasn't really been to me, more at me. Thank you, @Starship.paint for being so civil. (And I know you understand busy!) Thmazing (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, hey---serious question:
      Considering how often I could have cited myself, I rarely have. Usually I use some other source because it seems like the right thing to do. Those few exceptions are for information I didn't think was available elsewhere. I appreciate people don't appreciate the exception and I'm suitably cowed, but that gets to my question.
      There's been effort to have scientists and historians and others bring their expertise to Wikipedia. And I have to imagine, especially with a scientist bringing new information into the world, if they do so they have little choice but to cite themselves. Although I've generally avoided citing myself (as the rarity of instances proves) I've always thought that this drive to get wild-haired scientists to bring their work to the public via Wikipedia suggested a backside-covering precedent. I wonder how this understanding of the intersection between expertise and COI may have changed? Thmazing (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Scientists do not need to cite themselves to contribute their expertise. Science topics generally disallow primary sources (research articles), so adding info sourced to one's own research publications isn't compliant with PAGs anyway. Issues would really only arise when editing a very narrow subject, when the editor is so prolific writing review papers that all the most up-to-date consensus info is cited to them, or when the editor has a huge number of collaborators and can't avoid citing one of them. JoelleJay (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Thmazing: - I am afraid your response and past actions show what seems to me a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines. By citing your own self-published blog for information I didn't think was available elsewhere, you are violating WP:COI, WP:SPS (part of WP:V) and also WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV). It is my opinion that any topic that desperately needs your blog as a source probably does not meet WP:GNG for an article on Wikipedia, and any article that meets WP:GNG does not need your blog. starship.paint (RUN) 00:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not quite what I said. All the articles are worthy of existing sans me. I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. I now understand I should not have done that. Lesson learned. If my goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia, such edits would be greater than one one-thousandth of my total edits. I mean---I've written a lot of stuff. I've written about thousands of books and hundreds of movies and plenty of other stuff. If I were the sly ne'er-do-well described in this discussion, you could find hundreds more examples of self-citation to harp on. Since that's not that case, I would greatly appreciate a bit of WP:AGF. I'm trying to be a good citizen. I believe deeply in the value and importance of Wikipedia and my edit history proves I have added to that value. I'm not touching the articles I've been accused of COI on, even when it's absurd and I have stuff to add. For instance, I had collected a bunch of more recent sources on Brad Teare but I've only posted them to the talk page, even though I can't imagine a reason why I shouldn't be able to edit that page. Thmazing (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. That's what WP:NPOV says not to do: include details that aren't in secondary sources that you personally think are valuable to someone visiting the page. If the only person who wrote about a specific detail is you, then you're not the person who should be adding that detail to the Wikipedia article. What you did there was use Wikipedia to promote your own viewpoint--to promote details nobody else thought were important enough to publish. That is "sly ne're-do-well." That's not being a good citizen, that's putting your head in the sand and pretending that bias and COI don't apply to you. That you don't understand or accept this, is why we have COI rules: people with COI have biases that prevent them from viewing something objectively; in particular, COI comes with a bias that makes everyone think their COI doesn't come with a bias, or the bias doesn't matter. It's inherent, it's why COI rules exist in the first place. Levivich (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for disruption and ignoring NPOV. If Thmazing thinks Fram's comment is unclear[96] or that the draft linked above is NPOV, Fram's command of English, or at least the formal English in encyclopedias, may be better. It seems like a sarcastic comment to me, but either way there's been enough egregious behaviour that the camel was crushed long before the Belgian comment. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, tagging is still editing. 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing concerns

    BoyNamedTzu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Awilley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I am concerned that there has been canvassing involved in discussions related to Rachel Helps (BYU). In January 2024 there was a case here at AN/I involving myself and Rachel Helps (BYU). Both BoyNamedTzu and Awilley broke long no-edit stretches (21 November 2023-8 January 2024 and 9 December 2023-7 January 2024 respectively) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). Neither disclosed a conflict of interest. The same thing happened again with this VP/M-AN/I thread, both broke long no-edit stretches (8 January 2024-12 March 2024 and 17 February 2024-13 March 2024) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). BoyNamedTzu did not disclosed a COI, Awilley only disclosed after being asked. In between 8 January 2024 and 13 March 2024 BoyNamedTzu made no edits and Awilley made only four. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I mentioned above, I was alerted to the existence of these threads by pings or mentions because I had participated in a previous discussion about you and Rachel Helps.
    • January 9th AN/I thread: That thread was actually about topic banning or admonishing you for hounding Helps. You say I took a strong position, but I didn't even !vote. Here's the only comment I made in that thread (replying inline to another user to gently correct what I saw as a misrepresentation). Here's the comment that mentioned me in that discussion.
    • February-March VP/M thread: I got what looks like a more deliberate ping to that thread in this comment. You will undoubtedly find that suspicious because it was the same user who pinged me to the earlier thread. In any case, there seemed to be a lot of misunderstandings and accusations flying around, so I made a similarly meandering comment trying to clear up a few issues and replied to one user. Unfortunately I can't provide diffs to my two posts because they were caught up in an oversight, but if you scroll up from [97] you'll find it.
    • March 13 AN/I: I got pinged to the above thread by its creator in this diff. You can see my response above where I wrote, "in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor." I try to say something like that whenever I !vote on AN/I threads related to religion because I've recused myself from taking admin actions in that topic area.
    I didn't get any emails or off-wiki communication about these threads, and I'm not on any email lists or text threads or discord servers related to Wikipedia. From a search of my inbox, the last Wikipedia related email I received was in September 2023 from a user asking for details on how I created a certain .gif animation. As for why I chose to comment in the above threads: I have a soft spot when it comes to seeing gnomes getting attacked and sucked into wiki-drama.
    Speaking of pings and notifications, it looks like the "userlinks" templates you used above do not automatically generate pings, so I got no notification that you had opened this thread. You might want to consider officially notifying @BoyNamedTzu:. ~Awilley (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The community appears to have now endorsed my concerns around Help. I am disturbed that you are only now disclosing your BYU COI despite participating in a number of discussions about the BYU wikipedia editing program. Also, given what we now know clearly not a gnome and never was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also note that since pinging you to that first discussion P-Makoto has disclosed a series of COIs. In hindsight that appears to be on-wiki canvassing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the canvassing issue you have is with P-Makoto, for the first two discussions, not Awilley. starship.paint (RUN) 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that. I was just writing that I'm disappointed in Awilley. In the Jan 9th thread, that's one BYU alum pinging another BYU alum for backup in a thread involving BYU's WiR, and none of the three of them disclosed it. In the VPM, again a BYU alum pings another BYU alum, again accusing HEB of "hounding" the BYU WiR, and again, neither of the BYU alums disclose their connection. This is all in an effort to shut down HEB when HEB was right all along about the COI, in fact it's a much bigger and broader COI issue, we now know, than just involving the BYU WiR. This was super deceitful. I understod when I read "I'm commenting here as an involved editor," and I thought, ah ha, that's why. This is very not kosher, you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater. In hindsight, we now know, that almost all of the people defending the BYU WiR from COI allegations were also BYU people (or AML people, or both). This was all highly deceptive, which is extra disappoint when it all comes from a Christian church (yeah I said it). Levivich (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that this is an issue of lack of disclosure of Awilley's part, which is, the more I think about it, pretty disturbing, for the reasons you mentioned. starship.paint (RUN) 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, with that fact pattern laid out Awilley's conduct looks like harassment. They selectively participated in discussions about topics they had a COI with at a time in which they were not generally active on wikipedia in order to confront or inhibit the work of another editor (me). That would be unbecoming of any editor, from an admin it really begs the question of whether they should remain an admin. It is par for the course for disruptive editors to cry "Harassment!" while engaging in harassment, but I rarely see an admin do it and never without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater. We talked thoroughly on my userpage why the conflict of interest policy left me with the impression that it asked about current relationships and not terminated ones, and I apologized for that, both to you personally and in the Village Pump thread. This thread is the first that I learned Awilley had any connection to BYU. I pinged Awilley, along with Drmies and Mackensen, because they had participated in a past ANI thread about HEB and I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again. There are ways of communicating about COI other than by violating the harassment and privacy policies. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you pinged people because of their past interactions with me and not their past interactions with Rachel on a discussion purely about Rachel's conduct that is not appropriate. Especially if you did it because "I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again" that would be canvassing with a specific goal in mind, all three are admins, were you trying to get me blocked? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that at the time, you didn't know Awilley was a BYU alum. But Awilley knew. I now count at least half a dozen editors who have some affiliation with BYU/AML -- almost all of them current or former employees -- who engaged in discussions about undisclosed BYU/AML COI editing without disclosing their affiliation. If all of them were part of one single conspiracy, that would be bad. But if they all each independently decided to surreptitiously influence the COI investigation without disclosing their own COI, that's even worse. That's like: what the heck are they teaching at BYU, that there are so many BYU folks who don't seem to grasp basic ethics -- and not a matter of the wording of Wikipedia policies, or even ethics tied to any religion or culture, but cross-cultural basic ethics, like that if you are going to act as a "judge," "juror," or "witness," you'd better disclose your connection to the "defendant." That's so basic. Everyone involved in these discussions about BYU/AML COI who has any connection past or present with BYU or AML should disclose that, or else stay out of these discussions. And it seems like every day I'm learning of someone else who has been involved, has the connection, but didn't disclose. Levivich (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich, up until today I didn't know that P-Makoto was a BYU alumnus. And frankly knowing it now doesn't really change anything for me. She's just an editor with whom I cross paths with occasionally. There's only one Wikipedia editor I've ever knowingly met in real life. We went to lunch together and had a nice talk. Maybe he was a BYU alumnus too; I don't actually know. And it doesn't matter. Editors on Wikipedia should be judged by their words and actions, not the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended. ~Awilley (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, judged for actions like choosing to participate in multiple discussions about undisclosed COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it was your alma mater (though I appreciate that you finally did). Levivich (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is being judged by the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended... They are being judged by their words and actions *alone*. Throwing out these red herrings and insinuations of bigotry against good faith editors is not constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and my concern at the time was that HEB pushed too hard, evening when not gaining support from other editors for their views (still feel that way, but it's not relevant here). This situation is different, and I feel seriously misled by Nihonjoe's failure to disclose their COI. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will happily acknowledge that Rachel is my friend and the person who recruited me to Wikipedia and taught me how to edit. When I have seen her being relentlessly bullied by other editors, I have defended her. She has never asked me to do this. She has never reuqested that i participate, in any way, in any discussion about her work. She has never canvassed me or anybody else that I know about in order to solicit responses or participation. But the grenades that you and others have thrown her way have a real life impact on an actual human being that I care about, and that often propels me to action. I am conversant enough with Wikipedia conventions to find my way here without being canvassed.
    I will soon be deactivating my account and leaving Wikipedia for good. I have no desire to continue to edit, and I will pledge to make no more edits to any pages. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And did you see it on the discord? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I did not see it on the Discord, which I have not participated in for months. I saw it in my real-life interactions with my friend. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth I hope you stick around, in the future please either avoid such crossovers between your personal life and wikipedia or disclose them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns

    This was apparently instigated by a joe job
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Luke Olson (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an account for the purpose of !voting against a topic ban. In a discussion on their talk page, they revealed there is a discord channel where BYU editors are discussing and are opposed to this topic ban - I am concerned that other !votes may have been canvassed by that channel.

    In particular, I'm concerned about Oliveleaf4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who returned after a two month hiatus and after a few hours of editing elsewhere arrived to vote against this proposal - their first ever participation at ANI.

    I note Awilley has already been raised above, but I'm also concerned about them; they deny being a member of this discord channel, but there is clearly some connection as Luke Olson pinged them when restoring their !vote, saying I'm going to ping User:Awilley so he sees if someone deletes my message again.

    In general, I think this is evidence that stronger and broader action is required, perhaps similar to what was used against the Church of Scientology. BilledMammal (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't around for any Scientology saga, but I think if broader action is required, it would likely be geared towards reducing time wasted by college students with the most poriferous opsec I've ever seen, rather than what I presume was a real operation by serious people. Remsense诉 04:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what did end up happening with scientology anyways? vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 04:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there was this, @Vghfr. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff of the quote BilledMammal is referring to, for convenience. Left guide (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why Luke Olson singled me out. I've asked here on their talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most likely because you're a member of WikiProject LDS. I guess he thought that you'd back him up because you had involvement in LDS related topics vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If any more single purpose/meatpuppet accounts show up, just tag with {{spa}} directly after their sig. The closer should be an admin, and they should be able to properly weight any SPA comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the "not a ballot" notice to the top. jps (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස, @BilledMammal, @Dennis Brown, @Remsense and others, fwiw CU data indicates that account is a Joe job. Seems like it was created to derail the discussion and cause drama for entertainment. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad y'all put a stop to it. This really makes WP:AGF hard, doesn't it? Now I have to reset my priors because it did not occur to me that this could have been a joe job. jps (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming I'm no longer under under investigation for being an agent of BYU, may I suggest that if there is truly an appetite for having an open and honest discussion about off-wiki canvassing, it might be healthy to acknowledge the real elephant in the room. The thing that I think User:Horse Eye's Back referred to as the "invisible baseball". Above User:Aquillion above criticized Thmazing for questioning how Fram, HEB, and companyand a couple other editors spontaneously ended up on his talk page. It seems that was a valid question after all. In that light it's a bit ironic that we have editors tracking down Oppose voters to interrogate them on how they heard about this discussion, what their alma mater is, and whether they're members of a Discord group.

    I also can't help but wonder if some part of the frustration on display above may be displaced anger for a different user who is currently out of reach of AN/I. I'd hate to see Rachel Helps and Thamazing become convenient scapegoats for Nihonjoe. I'm not asking anybody to change their votes, but I do think it would be healthy to reconsider the BYU editor under every rock approach. ~Awilley (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it was a valid question at all. I asserted, and continue to assert, that the way in which Thamazing reacted there shows a starkly WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to Wikipedia. And it seems a bit silly to bring up the fact that Nihonjoe is before ArbCom as if that is something people concerned about COIs might object to. It seems clear to me that this will (and should) end up before ArbCom as well - the problem is systematic and comparable to eg. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology; it is unlikely to be settled here. --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I started watching Thmazing's talk page back in January after I submitted evidence on AML COIs to ArbCom. JoelleJay (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rather hard to look at Nihonjoe's COI contributions and not notice the constant intersection with both Thmazing and the BYU editors. For example Annie Poon was created by Thmazing, with later important edits by Nihonjoe and Rachel Helps (BYU). Oh, Rachel Helps even sourced the article to two different non-WP:RS sources written by Thmazing[98]. Stellar work promoting AML editors in an article about an AML Award winning artist, not problematic COI editing at all. Same at Steven L. Peck, created by Thmazing, expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) with addition of a source written by Thmazing[99] (and e.g. a source written by Michael Austin, which whom she has a COI as well) , of course again a winner of an AML Award (as are Thmazing, Rachel Helps, Michael Austin). On other pages edited by Nihonjoe, I encountered Thmazing adding his own publications[100]. I have to say, Rachel Helps is rather fond of quoting Thmazing, she used him as a reference twice in List of Mormon cartoonists as well, next to of course the AML Awards. But Thmazing doesn't really need her help, he is perfectly capable of ading his own self-published work[101], again on a page edited by Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe as well. But it is a good reference, because that work won, you guessed it, an AML Award.
    Oh look, Dendō! Created by Rachel Helps, about an AML Award winning book where the Library that pays Rachel Helps owns the original artwork, and where Helps again uses Thmazing as a reference (among other not quite independent references as well). It's a walled garden which becomes very obvious once one looks at more and more articles edited by the same people referencing each other by name, each others publications, the organisations they're in, and so on... Fram (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that was a valid question after all. Please explain what you mean by this. I would also note that if you want "to acknowledge the real elephant in the room" it would be helpful to actually name the elephant... In plain English what is the concern? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "It seems that was a valid question after all." I was referring to the off-wiki blog post/doxing that Thamazing mentioned above and questioning whether that might have been part of the reason a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep. The earlier blog post and related on-wiki fallout was what I was referring to as the elephant in the room. I think that's about as plain as I can be without having this post redacted. ~Awilley (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep" an accurate summary of the facts? I showed up on Thmazings talk page in December 2023‎. The off-wiki blog post was made on January 18th 2024. Fram didn't show up until 6 March 2024‎, JoelleJay on the 7th, and AirshipJungleman29 on the 8th. To me that looks like JoelleJay and AirshipJungleman29 followed Fram to the page but it doesn't look like Fram was following the "bad site" closely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw Fram's edits to the page come up on my watchlist and was curious. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how AJ29 arrived too. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on these facts I would ask that you strike "HEB" from "questioning how Fram, HEB, and company spontaneously ended up on his talk page." if you don't choose to strike the whole thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you joined the others in posting on March 7, I'll strike "HEB" as you requested because, as you pointed out, you had posted on Thmazing's talk page in December 2023. ~Awilley (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about those who posted on the 9th? Are they part of this clique you're alleging the existence of or is the 8th some sort of magic cutoff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to defend the blog in any way, but doesn't that editor make their real life identity abundantly clear, hence the conflict of interest? XeCyranium (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Thmazing made like zero effort to hide his identity, which made the COI obvious. And to be fair, I have seen some evidence that Thmazing was trying to declare COI even before he was confronted. See for instance this October 2023 edit with the edit summary, "conflict alert: just cited myself". (Still not great to cite yourself though, even if the information was mundane.) ~Awilley (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Awilley, you claim that insinuations that I appeared at Thmazing's talk page due to some off-wiki canvassing is "It seems that was a valid question after all." I guess you have some evidence for this? As far as I can reconstruct, I noticed Thmazing because of the AML and the AML Awards, which I was looking at because of the many links between them and Nihonjoe's COI articles; and because he also turned up at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 26, which I looked at when I delved a bit deeper in Rachel Helps' edits (again after I noticed the BYU, AML, ... edits and the collaborations with Nihonjoe on GA review, edit-a-thon, ... ). I then noticed the older discussion about his COI issues, so I started looking at his edits more closely then. But feel free to post any evidence you have of any off-wiki places I was contacted or where I contacted others or ... If you don't have any, perhaps strike the accusation and don't repeat such bogus claims in the future. Fram (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll

    @S Marshall: closed a controversial RFC today at Talk:Tim Hunt, see Talk:Tim Hunt#RfC: 2015 remarks. Whilst acknowledging there appeared to be a consensus, he reminded editors that consensus can't over-rule founding principles, the second pillar, and core content policy and quoting the amplification on his talk page these cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong. He later emphasised this on his own talk page [102] in response to a query [103].

    Judging by that query, it appears that the key point in the closure was being ignored; namely WP:PROPORTION. Shortly thereafter, and before any reply, an edit was made to Tim Hunt which appeared to ignore the closure[104]. Noting the history of edit warring at the article, I chose to add a {{npov}} tag and start a talk page discussion. I felt that any revert of a bold edit would result in an edit war and had no intention to revert war.

    My tag was removed by JayBeeEll [105] with the edit summary "Don't be silly", I restored the tag and it was once again removed by JayBeeEll [106] with the edit summary "Yes sure let's see how this turns out", which appears to be an intention to revert war. The comment in the talk page [107] in response to my concerns and the unnecessary 3RR warning on my talk page appears to confirm [108] that.

    On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies. As such I would suggest that the tag should remain until the closure is fully addressed. On a side note, I remain concerned about the toxic nature of any discussion in that talk page presently. Reluctantly bringing it here for further review. Please note I will not be available for a couple of days due to personal commitments. WCMemail 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The behavior displayed by WCM is very similar to the behavior that led to this only one month ago; it is disappointing that he has not been able to accommodate himself to the fact that his view is a minority, both relative to WP editors and to the views represented in reliable sources. At least he stopped after a single round of edit-warring about the ridiculous tagging. As with Thomas B, my hope is that this can be settled by a change of behavior, without the need for any sanctions. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no wish to comment on this ridiculous tag edit war, and I'd prefer to limit my involvement with the page to closing that one RfC, but I do want to say tempers are extremely frayed in this topic area and there's definitely scope for an uninvolved sysop to step in and restore order. Please.—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a ridiculous edit war, were it not for the fact I refused to edit war over this. The fact remains that removing the tags in the way JayBeeEll did is counter to accepted policy. I would acknowledge @S Marshall:'s comment that this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. I have been asking for that for weeks, the reference to the removal of Thomas Basboll, is exactly the point I wish to make. If editors are convinced they're right and there are enough of them make a fuss, they can remove what they see as an obstruction by lobbying loudly here. The edit war that editor attempted to start, and its clear that was his intention, was a repeat of the same tactics used previously. I have made no attempt to filibuster I simply tried to bring external opinion but that's pretty unlikely given the toxic nature of editing at present. WCMemail 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editing situation got much less toxic when you stopped participating for a few days; maybe you should try that again? Certainly it would be good for an uninvolved admin to tell you the same thing everyone else on this thread has said. --JBL (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point to anything I've said that contributes to a toxic atmosphere. As for comments contributing to a toxic atmosphere[109] "Don't be silly [110] "Yes sure let's see how this turns out" whilst edit warring to remove tags that encourage outside input. WCMemail 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies.
    That's an extremely uncharitable reading of the closure, apparently because you just don't like the results. The close was finding that the RfC consensus narrowly found for inclusion, with a warning to follow guiding principles of the Wiki while doing so. That's it. The rest of it is you projecting onto the closure and making vague, hand-wavy assertions that the close is against policy.
    Since you won't be available for a couple days anyway, I suggest you wait and see what proposed edits come from the RfC before making any further comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I at no point said the close was against policy, I actually think given the toxic atmosphere he was entering @S Marshall: made a very good closure of that malformed RFC. The reminder that local consensus can't trump core policy seems to have fallen on deaf ears it seems. WCMemail 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CON has by definition got to be aligned with the WP:PAGs since it embodies "a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". So if @S Marshall's close is "very good", it follows it must have correctly divined consensus, which you now need to accept. If however, you think the close has arrived at a problematic WP:LOCALCON you need to initiate a close review. Shit or get off the pot. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely this. WCM, you can't have it both ways: you can't claim the close "trumps core policy", while acknowledging it was a good close. The close in fact emphasizes that any proposed changes have to adhere to core policy. It seems you're claiming that the finding of inclusion inherently violates policy, so which is it? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point did I say the close trumps policy, that's your strawman. The closer clearly refers to core policies and makes it plain that they can't be overridden by a local consensus. He also singled out that I and others couldn't be ignored because we were making well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy further adding While editors are implementing option 1 and option 2A, they should have regard to core content policy, and specifically WP:PROPORTION. It's clear from this comment [111] there is no intention to implement the full intention of the close The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that WP:PROPORTION isn't terribly relevant. There is WP:TAG team of editors are acting in concert and per @S Marshall:'s comment this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. WCMemail 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh I tried, but if you're intent on digging a hole, I can't stop you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    If you aren't available for the next couple of days, why the hell are you opening an ANI thread? "Reluctantly bringing it here" yeah right. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WCM's editing regarding the Tim Hunt article has been as tendentious as Basboll's in staunchly refusing to get the point regarding the fact that their viewpoint is a minority and continuing to beat a dead horse and engage in WP:WIKILAWYERING in an attempt to fillibuster discussions regarding the issue, rather than just moving on. I would support a topic or page ban from Tim Hunt if WCM does not desist with his aggressive rejection of the talkpage consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • support topic ban due the editor's apparent unwillingness to drop the stick and refusal to get the point of the RfC. I commented at the ANI thread where Thomas B was topic banned. Given the RfC I moved on and have not touched the article or the RfC. The level of name-calling on display at that article over an ancient ten-day kerfuffle in the bro-sphere easily matched the most acrimonious mutual accusations of genocide I have witnessed on Wikipedia. EE squared. I had never heard of Tim Hunt. He seems nice? But if the episode in question is included in the article -- and there seems no question that RS has covered it in immense detail - then the article should dispassionately state that Tim Hunt said what he said. This editor's contention that it should not (because the poor man nearly committed suicide over this) utterly lacks a grounding in policy, and no evidence was ever presented of this assertion either. It betrays an emotional investment in this incident that baffles me, frankly. I would hesitate to participate on the talk page due to this editor's past level of vitriol, and the time sink it again likely would become. I am not following this thread. If anyone has questions about what I just said, please ping me. Elinruby (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [112] I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do. in your on words your motives are to expose another misogynist. I am quite astounded that you'd openly mock someone driven near to suicide. WCMemail 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring over orgins of a topic

    Need help to find the best way to proceed. Placing this here as am not sure if its really edit warring, or dispute resolution category. The topic of Eternal return although revived by Nietzsche has contested origins primarily because its fundamentally the very generic idea that history repeats. I've been adding citations to support a WP:NPOV that the idea can be traced beyond the Hellenistic period to ancient Buddhist/Hindu/Egyption thought; multiple scholars agree that there are striking similarities, and that there could have been cross-pollination or diffusion of ideas from theology. It also helps the reader better understand the idea of Eternal Return, also attested by scholars. While other editors are engaging in discussion (although refusing to read cited sources and accept an alternative viewpoint), there are editors such as William M. Connolley who are repeatedly deleting this content (along with other non-contested improvements) without engaging in any discussion on the articles talk page. Soothsayer79 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Feels a bit retaliatory, and part of ongoing refusal to accept consensus, or to recognize what constitutes original research. This recent filing is relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Soothsayer79, this is a content dispute. This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Please accept consensus and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure if there is consensus here among 3 editors. Additional citations were requested, and provided before inclusion. One editor with clear WP:OWN attitudes started having a collaborative discussion, decided that irrespective of having reliable citations, he/she did not support a particular viewpoint (that the idea existing before the Greeks). Another editor came in reverting everyones updates occassionally, and refuses to talk or discuss the matter at all. Please remove this discussion from here if this is not the place to adjudicate content disputes of this nature, and I can post it where it belongs which is WP:DRN I'm guessing Soothsayer79 (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This came up last week, see the ANI archive. Things do not seem to have improved since then.
    Essentially, Soothsayer has looked at Nietzsche's revival of the concept (influenced by Eastern sources in addition to the classical Greek ones), and extrapolated the conclusion that those Eastern sources are the same as the concept outlined in Greek sources. You're working backwards from Nietzsche to claim the Eastern concepts are therefore the same concept as the Greek one.
    Soothsayer, what I'm seeing is that people are disagreeing with your assertion, while you are just flatly refusing to WP:AGF and accept that they have valid reasons for disagreement. The WP:3O went against you, but you're still stonewalling. That is a problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I'm not asserting anything beyond citing sources that mention that the notion of eternal return existed in ancient cultures before and outside the Greeks. That is all. It would be great if a reviewer actually read these citations, and concluded that I was either misrepresenting them or misquoting them out of context or the sources themselves were unreliable. I do not see that happening here.

    Here is a test for you The Hand That Feeds You: compare the cited sources for Greek origins versus the sources for Eastern Theologiocal origins, then determine if either of them are talking about Nietzshe's Eternl Return - they are all saying the concepts are similar, nothing more. Based on that, can one origin be chosen for inclusion over another? Soothsayer79 (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How many times now have you been told that the place to resolve content disputes is on the talkpage of the relevant article? Continuing to push this at ANI, a venue for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems is disruptive in itself, and is demonstrating to uninvolved editors that you are not listening. Please read the essay WP:1AM and follow the very good and relevant advice there about actual steps you can take, including considering whether the fact that consensus is clearly against means you need to move on to other topics. Grandpallama (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but this is incredibly useless advice. If you cared to go into any detail, you will notice I've already asked that this topic to be archived so that it can be discussed at the appropriate place. Soothsayer79 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this is incredibly useless advice As of today, you are still edit warring against consensus. You probably need a partial block from editing the article. Grandpallama (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Grandpallama is right, and the fact you find their advice useless is quite telling. If you persist in trying to push your particular view in these articles, we may have to consider a topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the consensus version of the article, which now makes seven editors opposing these changes. If there are any further reversions, I will file a report at WP:EWN and seek a pageblock. Grandpallama (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OP blocked one week for sockpuppetry at the article in question. Grandpallama (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Welp, that was unexpected. I'd suggest Soothsayer stay away from the concept of Eternal Return from now on, or else the next block is likely to be indefinite. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AndyFielding

    Longterm disruptive removals of birth place/date from Early life sections (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). User never responds to talk page warnings (or any talk page comments at all) --FMSky (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor began editing in 2007, has made ~17k edits, the vast majority of which are almost certainly good, and has never been blocked. Since the start of his editing he has been using talk pages and has around 1300 edits in talk spaces. On 3 April 2018 he wrote on his user page: If you disagree with any of my changes, or have questions about them, please don't hesitate to contact me.
    Very disappointingly, on 15 July 2020, he changed this to I'm afraid I don't have time to engage in debates about my changes. If you disagree with some, undo them if you must— ... Since then, he has not stopped being communicative, and has, for example, made more edits to talk pages in 2022 then in all of the previous years combined.
    So this editor definitely talks in general, but consciously refuses to engage when editors inform him that some of his edits are wrong. Which is not collaborative. AndyFielding should commit to engage in consensus building, and that he understands that receiving feedback from other editors and participating in ocassional disputes does not have to be a "debate" every time. —Alalch E. 16:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also this announcement on the editor's talk page:
    Attention to reversals, feedback, etc.

    I'm sorry I don't have more time to attend to this page. If you feel compelled to undo any of my edits, it's your prerogative—although for the most part, only factual oversights should need correction, as my primary focus is on simpler language. (In reference works, “less is more”.)
    As a career writer and copy editor, I'm reasonably confident my contributions benefit WP's readers. Thus I'll continue to follow founder Jimmy Wales's injunction to be bold. As he said: “If you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.”
    Cheers, A.
    — User:AndyFielding 01:50, 9 January 2019

    —Alalch E. 16:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The core issue here seems to be a content issue. Have they been reverting at all to enforce their preferred version? A quick look at the diffs above shows several constructive changes mixed in with the clearly controversial birth date removals, which they're saying is based on redundancy grounds. Is he just doing step one of WP:BRD, and then simply conceding any subsequent discussion? They do have several edits to article talk pages recently, but at first glance nearly all of those appear to be WP:FORUM discussions rather than anything editing related. So clearly they have time to be engaging in consensus building and simply choose not to, which ain't great even if it's unclear whether that's actually disrupting anything. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    On 29 November 2022, FMSky writes the following to AndyFielding (diff, emphasis added):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reese_Witherspoon&diff=next&oldid=1109721746
    stop making these kinds of idiotic edits. the point of having the full name/birth date there is that you can put a source behind it --FMSky (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

    Prior to that, FMSky's added an inappropriate {{uw-vandalism2}} warning issued on 3 October 2022, with an added STOP REMOVING BIRTH NAMES/BIRTH DATES okay?? (diff), but I now see that it all started on Sept 24, with an identical message as the Nov one, except supplant idiotic with "nonsensical" and a different url cited (diff). And now, here we are: March 2024.
    What I don't understand, so maybe FMSky can explain this, is the problem with removing the full birth date and names from the body when that info is already mentioned in the lead (AndyFielding's 'redundancy,' 'simplicity,' etc.)? What makes these disruptive removals? Because a reference could be added to a lead, especially as a single footnote as opposed to a normal ref (i.e. so as to prevent the littering the lead with refs). But as much as I disapprove of how FMSky conducted themselves here, AndyFielding stonewalling the issue and continuing to do so for additional pages, even if not reverting anything, might not be ideal. But how intensive and extensive is it? Who knows. And it's not like there's a rule, for or against, such removals. El_C 08:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe read what other users have posted on his talk page instead of analysing a post by me made 2 years ago. The better question is why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads "Poulter was born[1][2][3][4]". Also tagging @Soetermans: who also left a number of talk page messages on the user's page FMSky (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FMSky, I will analyze and review what I see fit and in the manner and pace I see fit. And I find your own misconduct is pertinent. El_C 11:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for feedback on my behaviour 2 years. Now, whats actually relevant: Why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads "Poulter was born[1][2][3][4]" and what do you think about the comments by other users on his page? --FMSky (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FMSky, I have no opinion on that, but you need to take it down a notch, or I will block you from this noticeboard. El_C 12:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes my bad, I wont post in this thread any further. I feel uncomfortable being on this page anyway (that was originally the reason why I didnt made a report earlier) --FMSky (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be best for now. Your reports generally tend to be subpar (lacking context and depth), I'm sorry to say. And same for the history of your interactions with the user whom you've reported. Certainly room for improvement. El_C 12:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi El_C, perhaps other people disagree about repeating a date of birth and that's fine. This is a collaborative effort and we try to find a consensus. But as I read WP:LEAD, it is the summation of the article. Any information there should be in the article as well. We try to keep references out of the lead too (WP:REFLEAD). So it makes perfect sense to mention a date of birth in the lead and mention it in an early life section, if there is one. AndyFielding has been asked repeatedly to stop and hasn't communicated a bit about the issue. But after so many talk page messages and formal warnings, you can't feign ignorance and leave edit summaries like:
    So in my eyes, AndyFielding isn't just not aware of consensus, but willfully ignores it, with subtle jabs in their edit summaries. No replies on talk pages, but still going on little rants? That, combined with not communicating, sounds like disruptive behaviour to me. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't consider all aspects of the MOS to be mandatory, including this, but from your evidence, it does increasingly appear as a WP:POINT exercize. El_C 12:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bit off topic, I was checking their edits if they've done the same. They recently made some smart-assed comments on talk pages. To an honest question, asked nearly seven years ago, they responded with "Yes, tricky isn't it? Personally, I won't post videogame records unless they've been verified by space aliens." Kinda uncivil, unnecessary regardless. In a 10 year old discussion they replied "Gee! I'll have some of whatever you were having", an inappropriate response.
    The last reply on their own talk page was in November 2019. They won't to communicate there or here - but years old discussions not a problem? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi El_C, did you see my previous message? To be clear, those were after FMSky's note on their talk page. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, Soetermans. Thanks for clarifying that. El_C 07:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another inappropriate edit summary: " reckon this is what the writer meant, as "conservatively modest" would mean he was bashful about wearing more individualistic clothing. (By sheer coincidence, many conservatives are morons too, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.)" soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More of the same. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take some sort of action. Maybe FMSky could have been more polite, but they're 100% correct on the merits. The lede is meant to be a summary of the body, so repetition between the lede and the body is expected and valid. A check of some random diffs leaves me unimpressed with AndyFielding's copyediting - they appear to be, at best, enforcing a style preference on text that should honor the main contributor's style preference, and at worst making actively bad changes and being a net negative. There have been studies on this: readers do not read articles like they're novels and carefully remember every bit of information from before, but rather bounce around from section to section. So for an example other than removing birth dates from the body, despite his edit summary saying that "most [readers] aren't amnesiacs—pronouns are fine", no, actually, using a last name again for clarity often makes a sentence read much simpler and work better as an excerpt, without requiring consulting earlier as to who exactly is being referred to. This could be resolved very simply by AndyFielding simply resolving and agreeing to not do things like this, but if he's going to refuse to engage or to communicate despite being reported at ANI five days ago, then a sanction is all we have. SnowFire (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please ban Fabrickator from interacting with me.

    [Edit: I have copyedited this post in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.]

    I'm not the only user that thinks Fabricator should be banned from interacting with me. In fact, I got the idea from this comment by Asparagusus on my talk page.

    Also, Graham Beards implied here that Fabrickator and I should stop interacting with each other, which I agreed with, and Fabrickator did not agree with.

    I believe Fabrickator has been guilty of hounding me on Wikipedia, and has been incivil about it. Here he sarcastically referred to an edit of mine that he disapproved of as "brilliant". Something went wrong with the formatting (I think Fabrickator caused this somehow, but I'm not sure), but who said what and when is still fairly clear, I think.

    Fabrickator has persisted in communicating with me despite my requests that he leave me alone, and has also repeatedly ignored my questions about why he so interested in me, and in one case, cryptically said, "I'm not going to directly respond to your question." when I politely asked, yet again, why he was so interested in me.

    Fabrickator has reverted several good edits of mine, seemingly after following me to an article. Here is just one such reversion. It is notable, because firstly, it was re-reverted by Graham Beards, and secondly, Fabrickator did his reversion quietly. He did not tell me what he had done, which is remarkable, given how much irrelevant material he has posted on my talk page . I only found out he had done it much later, after Graham Beards had unreverted it. Thirdly, it is *clearly* a remarkably incompetent and fairly harmful reversion.

    So Fabrickator has not just been wasting *my* time, and a few other editors who have kindly taken some interest in this matter, such as Graham Beards and Asparagusus, but, more importantly, has directly harmed Wikipedia and Wikipedia's readers.

    I think Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, while I am not banned from interacting with him. Having said that, I would be content (delighted, in fact) with a two-way ban, if it is permanent. Polar Apposite (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A few points here. If you want someone to stop posting on your talk page, you should make a clear request. This also means do not ask the editor any questions or otherwise talk about them on your talk page. Such a request should be respected with the exception of essential notices etc per WP:USERTALKSTOP. If User:Fabrickator had continued to continued to post on your talk page despite you asked them to stop, I think we would now be at the stage where they received a final warning before an indefinite block. I think your requests were a lot less clear than they should have been. Still I'll warn them. As for your iban proposal, that is a lot more involved and we'd need to see evidence of something more than simply posting on your talk page when you asked them to stop. If they're indefinitely blocked there's no need for an iban. A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough. Nil Einne (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In User_talk:Polar_Apposite#sigmoid_colon_redux, I offered to abide by an informal 60-day interaction ban. That was on February 8. I asked him to clarify whether he accepted that, he did not "formally" respond to that, but he did acknowledge it, and stated that he was interested in either a temporary or permanent ban. I did not ask for further clarification (the intent being to avoid interaction). So for about the last 35 days, I have refrained from any interaction with Polar (obviously, aside from this interaction, which I presume that I am obliged to respond to).
    I viewed this informal approach as having certain advantages:
    • Save administrators from having to become involved in adjudicating the dispute.
    • Also save them the trouble of officially tracking the ban, assuming it were to have been granted.
    If I were to have violated that ban, the voluntary ban would likely be viewed as a "confession of fault".
    • There is neither an official determination of fault, nor an admission of fault'
    • Upon successful completion of this voluntary ban, future requests for a ban should not be based on events that happened prior to the voluntary ban.
    For the last 35 days, I have avoided any interaction with Polar. OTOH, in spite of Polar's seemingly implied commitment to avoid any interaction with me and 35 days without any interaction, he now submits this IBAN request. I request that it be denied, on the basis of this informal interaction ban.
    We should be very careful about the restriction of mere communication between users, recognizing in particular that the imposition of a ban places the banned party at a greatly heightened risk as well as creating what can be a problematic situation if (by some coincidence) they both happen to be "participating" in editing or commenting on the same article.
    Respectfully, Fabrickator (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? Polar Apposite (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In point of fact, I had avoided communicating with you for 35 days. FWIW, though, you cannot reasonably avoid criticism by insisting that criticism of you (by myself and/or by somebody else) is not permitted. In any case, the appropriate place for such a discussion would be on one of the participant's own talk pages. Fabrickator (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you avoided communicating with me for 35 days, and didn't revert any good edits of mine during that time, I thank you for that. But I want to *never* hear from you again, and *know* that I will never hear from you again, The only way that is possible is with a permanent interaction ban. In my opinion you should be blocked indefinitely (from Wikipedia), but I won't ask for that. You should be very grateful to if you only get a permanent one-way interaction ban. As I see it, you have nearly always wasted my time with your comments, and your reverts of my good edits is even worse, especially since you quietly followed me around Wikipedia reverting good edits of mine without even telling me. And in my humble opinion you have been uncivil while at it. It discouraged me from editing Wikipedia.
    And you have, yet again, avoided answering my very reasonable and polite question. So I will repeat it. Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? Polar Apposite (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polar Apposite, this is very stale. The most recent diff you provide is over a month old.
    An admin should close this. TarnishedPathtalk 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you've brought this up. I've been busy with some things in real life for the last month or so, that's all. As you can see, I have almost no edits to Wikipedia during the last month. I have in a sense, been away from Wikipedia, to some extent, for the last month.
    I don't think there's any reason to believe that the situation has changed during the last month. Whether it's "stale" is not a real issue. In fact, the fact that I have been away actually reduces the significance of the fact that Fabricator has not posted on my user page during the last month or so. I don't know whether he has quietly reverted some more good edits of mine. Polar Apposite (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polar Apposite we're supposed to WP:AGF, not WP:ABF. If you had evidence of them reverted good edits of yours recently then you ought to provide evidence not state that you don't evidence that they haven't done it. The fact that you haven't provided any recent evidence of anything speaks very heavily to this being stale. TarnishedPathtalk 07:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is stale as well, but if the consensus is that this is not he the case, I think any interaction ban, if necessary, ought to be two-way. Fabrickator has done a poor job reading the tea leaves and should have backed off even if the request to stay off the talk was not explicit, but Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally. They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like "harmful" and "incompetent" needlessly in conversations.
    In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I really can't see this going anywhere. TarnishedPathtalk 07:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I would ask that the implicit agreement of the "voluntary iban" (which was effectively "completed" by virtue of this incident being opened) should be abided by, i.e. that there shouldn't be an iban. It's not that I anticipate a desire to interact with Polar, but it will be counter-productive to have to think about this every time I edit an article or participate in some discussion. Fabrickator (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply put, it's clear that Polar Apposite does not want you to post on their Talk page. You should abide by that. However, that does not mean you must avoid them on article Talk pages, and conversely Polar Apposite can't just ignore you on article Talk pages when you bring up an issue.
    If things escalate, we can start considering a two-way iban, but for now this should suffice. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [Edit: I have copyedited this post (like I did with the OP a few hours ago) in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.]
    I'll reply to myself to avoid "bludgeoning" anyone :)
    331dot told me on my talk page that, "It's not bludgeoning to civilly respond to arguments/posts made in and of itself; it might be if, say, if you had a snarky response to every comment about you. I would make a single, calm comment responding to claims made about you. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)".[reply]
    Accordingly, I will respond to everyone's posts in a single (hopefully calm, ha ha) comment.
    I don't know whether Fabrickator should be blocked from Wikipedia, because I don't know how valuable his other contributions have been. Looking at his contributions for the first time (I was not interested until now) just now, in search of reversions of my edits, I see that he has made a lot of edits purportedly fixing broken links, which sounds good. Why stop him from doing that, if it is good work? Banning him from interacting with me would not affect, I would have thought, his ability to fix broken links. His work in general may be valuable. All I am sure of is that his interactions with me have been a huge waste of time, and quite harmful at times.
    I'd like to clarify that I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page, as that would give him an excuse to continue reverting good edits of mine without proper discussion or even notification. Also, doing so could be seen as uncivil according to the summary of this Wikipedia page which says,
    "This page in a nutshell: Editors can request that other editors keep off their user talk page. However, such demands may be considered uncivil. Disobeying such a request may or may not result in sanctions, depending on the circumstances."
    I didn't want him to never post on my page, just to stop wasting my time with useless posts that seemed aimed at socializing with me, possibly trying to befriend me (we have never been friends, BTW), or to harass me, or possibly some "frenemy"-style mixture of the two. When I asked him why he wanted to communicate with me, and what he found so interesting about me, I really was sincerely interested in learning why. He has always chosen not to answer my question.
    @Nil Einne I thought you might want more examples of bad reversions of my work by Fabricator (I found three more) when you wrote,
    "A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough."
    Here goes. The egregious pathology article reversion [114], was not the only bad reversion of one of my edits. Another example would be @Fabrickator 's reversion here of this other good edit of mine to the Jo Koy article. Notice how there's no "reverted" tag on my edit, making it harder for me or anyone else to notice that my edit had been reverted. His edit summary says, "revert of 14:10 and 14:41 edits of 8 January 2024: both "Filipino" and "Filipina" are acceptable forms when used with "mother"; remove extraneous space at end of line". Wikipedia rules say that only positively harmful edits should be reverted, and so this justification makes no sense, because it acknowledges that my edit was harmless at worst. Secondly, even if both forms are acceptable (debatable, see my comments on the article talk page, that doesn't mean that they are equally suited to an encyclopedia article, so, again, the edit summary is nonsensical. I argued on the talk page that "Filipina" is foreign or slang, or at least has that vibe about it, and therefore "Filipino" is more encyclopedic. I also argued that "Filipina" is confusing, because then what does "Filipino" mean? Does it refer only to males? English doesn't have this final a vs final o male/female system. But Fabrickator has not addressed any of these objections to his reversion. I have no objection to his deletion of the whitespace character I added to allow a dummy edit (an accepted technique on Wikipedia which Fabrickator seems not to have heard of, leading to his taking me to task for this elsewhere, wasting everyone's time yet again). OTOH, there was no need for him to do that, as it was harmless. If he wanted to do it, I think he should have quietly deleted the white-space in a separate edit, and marked his edit as minor, instead of making a fuss about it.
    To sum up, Fabrickator has done four reversions of my edits that I know about, having looked through all his contributions in the last seven months: 1. the egregious, bizarre, and outrageous, pathology article reversion, 2. the absurd and absurdly defended Jo Koy article reversion, 3. the useless (albeit harmless) and timewasting fuss-laden reversion of a whitespace character, also in the Jo Koy article, and 4. the absurd reversion of my edit adding a citation needed tag and substituting a failed verification tag here. Fabrickator's reversion was later unreverted here by Nardog, with an edit summary saying, "Reverted 1 edit by Fabrickator (talk): CN is correct, it's not cited to any source". To sum up, Fabrickator's four reversions of edits of mine comprise one outrageous one, one absurd one, one bad one, and one theoretically harmless one but accompanied by a lot of time-wasting fuss based on his not knowing what a dummy edit is and his not simply asking my why I added the white-space before berating me here (in quite an uncivil way, I might add. He calls the whitespace character an "extraneous space".
    Out of four reversions, zero were useful, two were unreverted by other editors, three were harmful, and one was quite harmful indeed. And he followed me to all those articles, it seems, in order to do what he did. And his subsequent discussion has been either zero, ignoring me, or useless and uncivil. He seems to think he is competent to overrule me without discussion, but I think he is wrong about this. I saw that some of his copyedits to the work of some other editors were good, so he should probably continue copyediting, but overzealously trying to correct *me* has led to his getting out of his depth, perhaps. That seems a charitable way of looking at this, and assumes good faith. Let him try his luck with someone else, as long as it doesn't become hounding and incivility, as I would suggest has been my experience with Fabrickator.
    @CoffeeCrumbs You wrote,"Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally" First, whether I have a history of "bludgeoning conversations" at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it? Second, could be specific about what I actually did wrong at those pages? "Flooding" is a bit vague. What I did in the latter case *could* be seen as simply making my case in a very thorough way, with appropriate attention to detail. As for the former, I thought I was allowed to ask as many questions as I wanted. It seems I was wrong about that, but since no one had told me about that rule, "flooding" seems a bit over the top, no pun intended. A giant puddle of tea come to mind :)
    You wrote, "They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like "harmful" and "incompetent" needlessly in conversations." Again, how about being specific? I think I am allowed to use "harmful" and "incompetent" needlessly on Wikipedia, am I not? And you have made no mention of any of the rude things Fabrickator has said to me. That's interesting, isn't it? You don't look very impartial right now.
    You wrote, "In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud." Again, are you able to be specific? What specifically did I say (you have no excuse for not being specific, as everything is there in black and white) that warrants a reprimand (light or not) to remind me that "every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud"? When did I ever say anything that indicates that I think that? Genuinely curious now.
    @The Hand That Feeds You:Bite I'm actually primarily concerned about his reversions of my good edits. Out of a total of four that I could find, zero were useful, three were harmful, two were undone by other editors, and one was egregious. All of them were bizarre, and the result of following me around Wikipedia. And there was no proper discussion or notification to me. Polar Apposite (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When people are griping about you bludgeoning discussion, posting massive, badly-formatted walls of text only vindicates those concerns. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did what I was told to do. Polar Apposite (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be glad to try improve the format. What specifically did you not like about it? Polar Apposite (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the constructive feedback. The links should have been inside words, and I put them all inside words just now. Was that what you had in mind? What else, if anything made call it "badly-formatted"? Cheers. Polar Apposite (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly not going to read all of that. TarnishedPathtalk 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't going to speak up in favor of any administrator(s) taking action regarding either you or Fabrickator, but as you continue to WP:BLUDGEON while ignoring WP:AGF, I'm starting to wonder if you're willing to collaborate with people who disagree with you. It's really unhelpful when you post a giant wall of text, especially when a huge chunk of it is an off-topic wall of text in which you explain that you have your own guidelines that somehow override Wikipedia's at MOS:PHIL. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, whether I have a history of "bludgeoning conversations" at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it?
    I'm going to single this out, because the rest of that wall of text is just rambling. Yes, it does have bearing because it can indicate that the problem isn't Fabrickator, it's the fact you keep throwing these lengthy diatriabes up instead of concisely making your points. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just appending this comment at the bottom, I'll remind people that (if you're not subscribed to this specific discussion), it's hard to see the edits that have been made at various places in the text. You might want to look at the "diffs" if it matters to you
    Second, I will note that Polar has stated that he never asked me not to post to his "talk" page, so the fact that I made posts to his "talk" page is not per se an issue.
    Third, as Polar has pointed out, the Wiki software doesn't allow you to add an edit summary without making some kind of change. If you try to do this, it just silently discards the edit summary provided, so inserting a space character is just a way to get around this behavior. This was something I had been unaware of, so my criticism that he added an extraneous space was unwarranted, and I apologize for that. Fabrickator (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, another minor point. The interaction ban had been proposed by User:Graham Beards in January (though it's in Graham's talk page archives for 2023 ... see User talk:Graham_Beards/Archives/2023#Please advise me regarding dealing with Fabrickator.). As is clear from this discussion, I do not go along with this proposal. I interpreted this as Graham's attempt to gracefully bow out of the dispute, but I mention it here just because I want to set the record straight. Fabrickator (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Polar Apposite, no one, I mean NO ONE, is going to read that wall of text you posted. And they are unlikely to participate in this discussion. And the one thing I remember when I was a regular here at ANI years ago is that you will never get an IBan or TopicBan without considerable community support which you don't have here and are unlikely to receive given these diatribes. You can't just request an IBan and magically have an admin impose it. It has to have support from your fellow editors which isn't going to happen. So, I suggest like most of us, you avoid editors you don't get along with or use Dispute Resolution if that is an appropriate forum for your disagreement. It also seems like this is not a current, intractible dispute but something that has bothered you in the past which makes it even more unlikely that any admin wandering through here will take action. Just my 2 cents. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Primarily on Wikipedia to launder neo-nazi cartoonist

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

    StoneToss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This user has created a new version of this article that appears to be designed to give additional visibility to claims that attempt to contradict the information from the doxxing of StoneToss, which connects StoneToss to the neo-nazi cartoon RedPanels,[1] and I strongly suspect that they are on Wikipedia for this very reason.

    References

    1. ^ Beschizza, Rob (March 16, 2024). "Nazi cartoonist meets the Streisand Effect after Twitter censors discussion of his identity". Boing Boing. Retrieved 17 March 2024.

    —Alalch E. 02:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean you're telling me right-wingers are trying to obfuscate the fact that this one guy is StoneToss/RedPanels? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Trying to promote a counternarrative. Edit: to be more clear: in this instance, using the high-profile platform that is Wikipedia to promote the counternarrative by feebly attempting to subvert the BLP policy. —Alalch E. 02:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...can I even say the name on Wikipedia? I really want to, but I feel like it would still be a BLP violation. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why we can't wait for more news agencies to confirm or deny a claim that could egregiously defame an individual. It's a strawman to state that I want it removed. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Diff/1214121740.—Alalch E. 03:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence was removed because the citation linked together StoneToss and RedPanels. For now, there's no irrefutable proof that they're the same people, and we should be cautious against claiming that people are white supremacists or neo-Nazis, particularly if their personal names are listed. I'm not sure why this is controversial. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now in the article: The Anti-Defamation League describes him as a far-right illustrator and a political scientist in a reputable journal describes him as an "extreme rightwing cartoonist known for his bigoted work". The reference which you removed in the above diff (it is not one of the two mentioned, it's a third one) has the following words: "In the memesphere, the American webcomic StoneToss has attracted controversy for its Holocaust-denial dog whistlesand other semi-coded references to white supremacist, homophobic, and misogynist thinking." It does not mention RedPanels, and only describes Stonetoss as Stonetoss. You see RedPanels in it despite no mention of RedPanels because that aligns with your goals on Wikipedia, and guided by them you want to remove such information, as you have done in the above diff. —Alalch E. 05:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that argument is that the Anti-Defamation League has accused almost any critic of Israel and almost any criticism of circumcision as antisemitic. The other source could possibly be included but the article's far too short to only include that opinion. Donald Trump and the Republican Party in general has also been defined by some as "far-right" but it would be unneutral to state that. If StoneToss is confirmed to be Red Panels I'll immediately change my opinion on the matter. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are reliable sources which state something it is not unneutral to use the reliable sources. NPOV is about going where the RS take us. Please don't gaslight here. It will not go well for you. TarnishedPathtalk 05:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are reams of reliable sourcing which state unambiguously that StoneToss is a neo-Nazi. This is not a controversial position. Stating the the author of StoneToss is a neo-Nazi is not controversial. TarnishedPathtalk 05:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making some bold accusations against someone who simply suggested that we should wait for more evidence. Anyone who reads the edit history can see that I kept the controversy in the page.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StoneToss&action=history
    Nazism is fucking disgusting. The fact that you're attempting to drag my name in the mud is despicable. I politely asked for a response on the talk page and was completely ignored.
    Then you immediately started this. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a complete mischaracterization of what I did. (And anyone here can read the edit history for themselves.)
    The citation mentions that: "Others, however, poked holes in the Anonymous Comrades Collective’s investigation and said the group was only able to identify RedPanels, the retired cartoonist who the group said is also StoneToss."
    The linkage to RedPanels and StoneToss is mentioned. We should not however state that they're irrefutably the same people or that the identitied individual is without a doubt RedPanels or StoneToss.
    These are strong accusations and it would be better if we waited until more news organizations write on the matter. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DAILYDOT —Alalch E. 03:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. Some editors have objected to its tone or consider it to be biased or opinionated." CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't think "significant 'holes' were identified in the doxxing effort, mainly that the individual identified has ties to Red Panels but may not be the same artist behind StoneToss" is a non-contentious claim of fact ? ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 04:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CoolidgeCalvin, Have you edited previously to this account? You display a bit of a grasp of WP policies considering your account is only 1 week old and you've only made 46 edits. TarnishedPathtalk 05:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The initial version created by the above user also promotes the subject in general, which should be telling: special:permalink/1214118239: He is a top influencer on Twitter ...—Alalch E. 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a top influencer isn't always a good thing.
    It just means that people interact with your posts. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I knew you'd say that. My response to that is: You amplified the promotion to leading political influencer on Twitter (Special:Diff/1214119705) —Alalch E. 03:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The actual last edit I made before anyone interacted with it was here. You can see that the RedPanels connection is mentioned.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=StoneToss&oldid=1214118693 CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Leading political influencer on Twitter" is true. Do you think influential individuals can't be horrendous people? You could have just addressed the concerns that I had raised on the page. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioned yes, as a spin about how the subject is being harassed, and the source (however crappy of a source) does not include the word harassment in that context. —Alalch E. 03:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doxxing is a form of harassment. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but you must understand that when you create a piece about how a top leading political influencer on Twitter is being harassed but it's a doxxed neo-nazi, and no one but you says he's a leading anything or that he is harassed, and your history of edits shows that you are primarily interested in promoting this perspective, there's a bit of an issue. —Alalch E. 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempted doxxing is a form of harassment. By definition. Considering that the accused individual has had their extended family's addresses also posted, and they have views that are different to him, even if confirmed, then of course those type of activities are immoral.
    His extended family (at the very least) is not responsible for him possibly being evil and a Nazi. Twitter's trust and safety team has described it as harassment. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because we all know Twitter is reasonable under Elon Musk. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doxxing the family members of bad people is still harassment. Is the brother of Kim Jung Un responsible for his actions? Of course not. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not the best example. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter's trust and safety team has described it as harassment. They have, which is odd cause their policy surrounding harassment does not consider sharing the name of a person to be doxxing, and as Boing Boing noted Twitter have not taken action in other instances of doxxing on the platform, some of which were endorsed by Elon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Elon considers sharing the (public) coordinates of his plane to be doxxing. Do we really think Twitter still has a consistent definition for this? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 04:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if StoneToss is confirmed to be a neo-Nazi, posting the home addresses and phone numbers of his family members is clearly doxxing and harassment. What's being disputed here?
    Even bad people don't deserve that. If they're misidentified, someone's life could be severely damaged based upon the whims of a mob, so I'm uncertain why several here want to possibly do so. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just read the doxxing document from the collective, and while his name, photo and date of birth is in it, as well as a roughly 25 square mile census-designated place, I'm not seeing any evidence of his home address or phone numbers nor the home addresses and phone numbers of any other individuals. Even his email addresses were redacted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    totally unrelated: their username is a WP:MISLEADNAME, although it's perhaps not the worst given that Coolidge has been dead forever and is very well-known. Queen of Hearts she/theytalk/stalk 04:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to bring attention to the account WalletLantern (talk · contribs), which was created and began editing CoolidgeCalvin's StoneToss article a few minutes after CoolidgeCalvin's final comment here, with the first edit being to remove the speedy deletion template. 203.211.79.73 (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, that (WL) account was intended as a provocation, so blocked indef. Also deleted the bio entry, because that was already decided, twice: once in 2023 and, prior to that, in 2021. So if there is something new that warrants another recreation, it'll have to be presented in WP:DRAFT format, so that the fine folks at WP:AFC can determine what's what — because I am WP:SALT'ing it. El_C 10:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, Draft:Stonetoss was created by Trainrobber66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in Jan 2024. It reads: Stonetoss is a satirical comics artist, and that's it. El_C 10:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we rewrite the article? trainrobber >be me 10:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who are interested, can do so at that draft. If that draft succeeds in passing the WP:AFC process, then the article can be recreated (go live again). El_C 10:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to the draft can be here trainrobber >be me 15:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to Draft:Stonetoss there's also Draft:StoneToss. The later is about half a year older, and has slightly more content to it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I remember typing that (Draft:StoneToss) and there being nothing — I must have typo'd that. Thanks. El_C 07:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm coming late to this but read through the entire discussion until I got to the message about El C deleting the article. Only to see that it is very much alive in main space. Did you expect to see it back in main space the next day, El C? Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I edited the draft, moved it to mainspace based on my editorial judgement, as I found various existing sources, and new significant coverage did materialize in the last few days, then another camel-case-username account appeared from a user who had emailed WMF claiming libel and tagged for G10, Keegan took the tag down, then that user tried to enforce removal leading to 3RRN, leading to a 24h block, but this was then also followed by a CU block. In the meantime, various editors in good standing have seen the article and apparently found no fault with it, and several have edited it. —Alalch E. 11:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An AfD was started after I made the above comment however: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StoneToss —Alalch E. 16:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Liz, I did not expect it. But if it concludes with a (3rd) deletion outcomes (AfD bold above is my emphasis btw), I'm inclined on salting and move-protecting at admin level (vis-a-vis the inevitable draft) at that time. I suppose we'll see what's what in a week or so. El_C 20:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone seen Special:Diff/1213208139 in which @CoolidgeCalvin argues that gender-affirming surgery is "a form of mutilation". WTF? Can admins please take action on this. TarnishedPathtalk 05:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    an account that has edited primarily in contentious political topics that involve right-wing views... hm. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 09:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an awful diff but neither having right-wing views or being an SPA is a blockable offense. Bias against transgender people often is. That diff is from March 11th, their first day editing, and since then they have received Contentious Topic warnings. I haven't looked into the other complaints here. Liz Read! Talk! 14:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Meatpuppetry/Slotkin article

    Wanted to flag the meatpuppetry going on once again on Talk:Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW strike. It has been admitted to here on Twitter. We have prior examples of issues with sockpuppets and meatpuppetry on this article including Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thespeedoflightneverchanges and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1135#Thespeedoflightneverchanges. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagging @Muboshgu @Cullen328 @Drmies @ScottishFinnishRadish as admins who've previously resolved issues on this article and @Cpotisch who previously has been canvassed by this banned user. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding a bit more detail before I start the workweek and probably won't have a lot of time for finding difs and the such.
    I've now notified them so I will directly mention @Andrew.robbins and @Seamusfleming92 as the editors of concern. @OrcaLord is agreeing with them but has more history on Wikipedia (including a previous 3-month ban from Elissa Slotkin) -- while there's likely off-Wiki coordination going on (they follow each other on Twitter) I don't think Orca falls fully within the definition of a meatpuppet.
    Both editors recently resurrected their old accounts specifically with a seeming single-minded goal of getting content that was previously removed reinstated into the Elissa Slotkin article. The content was previously advocated for by Thespeedoflightneverchanges or their socks after they were indef banned. This user has previously been identified as this Slotkin-obsessed handle on Twitter which is "urgently" recruiting "experienced wikipedia editor" to continue their anti-Slotkin agenda.
    The four articles used by @Andrew.robbins to advocate for their preferred language on talk page are exactly the four articles that the previously-banned editor was using when spamming editors on Twitter for assistance to change this article (see screenshot in this Tweet). Meanwhile, @Seamusfleming92's account seems to have largely been used for blatant vandalism when it was first created back in 2022. Now all it's done is advocate for the previously-banned editor's preferred content on the Slotkin article.
    As previously flagged by @Muboshgu and then by @Cpotisch, there is a cohort of editors coordinating offwiki/on Twitter "who all hate Slotkin" attempting to influence this article and this appears to be their latest POV pushing attempt. This article is already ECP and OrcaLord was previously 3-month banned from it for attempting to edit war for his POV. This now seems to their latest attempt to create an artificial consensus on the talk page for their POV edits. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on. I was involved with the Slotkin page beforehand for the purpose of copyediting. Its kind of hard for me to be recruited when I was already involved with the page. I am curious how you intend to justify painting me with the twitter-coordination smear without so much as an associated twitter account. And yes, the four articles linked were the exact same as the deleted ones. I was up-front about that and mentioned it in the same talk post for the sake of ease of reference. I simply thought it merited discussion. I think its worthy of note that Dcpoliticaljunkie immediately accused Seamusfleming92 of being a sockpuppet upon first edit of the page. It was closed for utter lack of evidence here. I have serious concerns about violations of WP:NEUTRALEDITOR here. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I flagged Seamusfleming92 because it looked DUCK-like to me when they started advocating for exactly what the previously-banned editor previously advocated for. I now realize that it's likely meatpuppetry (as evidenced by recruitment on the banned editor's Twitter). Worth noting that another account I reported was blocked as likely sock.
    And it's true: you did resurrect an old account to make copy edits and then 1 week later began doing exactly what the banned editor has publicly posted about recruiting editors to do. That's where my suspicion comes from. Anyway, I will step away here to do some work and we can allow the admins review everything. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its dishonest to classify an account that made sporadic edits every few months going back to March of 2023 (or even July 2022) increasing its activity as "resurrection of an old account". andrew.robbins (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth noting per Special:Contributions/Seamusfleming92 that there were non-slotkin edits as recently as January. What are we doing here? andrew.robbins (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote that post yesterday because I agree with the point, not because I am a meatpuppet. There is no collusion going on between me and any others. If you see my account history I do a lot of edits on other pages and contributing to Wikipedia. I do not plan on editing this page anymore in the future, only talking on the talk page to share my opinion. OrcaLord (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don’t have the bandwidth to look at the details of this right now but I’ll just say right now that Thespeedoflightneverchanges keeps spamming me on Twitter and getting increasingly desperate to make Slotkin’s article harsher, and has alluded to meatpuppetry. Cpotisch (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page has been ECP protected which should help things for the moment. The incessant anti-Slotkin invective from Thespeedoflightneverchanges/ProgFlip is quite astounding. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Said ECP protection was made without justification and I am currently in the process of appealing pending the enforcing admin either responding to my talk page post or coming back online and ignoring it. As an aside, may I remind everyone that thespeedoflightneverchanges is not a direct party to this dispute. andrew.robbins (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that both the Elissa Slotkin article and it's associated talk page are covered under two separate Contentious Topic Procedure rulings, for which page protection (including ECP) is one of the standard restrictions that may be authorized by any uninvolved administrator; there is no requirement for "justification" beyond that administrator's determination that said protection is "necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:ATPROT ECP on a talk page is generally not considered necessary or proportionate. Regardless, this is a different topic for a different thread. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To close the loop on this before everything moves to the appeal thread, I should point out that the CTOPS procedure is an extraordinary grant of the Arbitration Committee's authority that overrides the standard WP:ATPROT policy and consensus. See, e.g., this current statement from the arbitrators on that exact topic, from a different case. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    keyword can. I'm more explicit about which part I'm challenging on the other thread. andrew.robbins (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, the clarification there is helpful. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits on Leia Zhu

    I noticed that User:WikiWizard88 has been actively adding unsourced and redundant information to Zhu's article, many of which violates WP:BLP policies (as seen in these edits here [115] [116] [117]). User:BobbieCarynBevis has twice reverted these edits and provided a rationale in their edit summary (as seen here [118] [119]) and on Zhu's talk page here, but the first revert reverted by the user in this edit [120]. I explained on the user's talk page here about why their edits were contrary to Wikipedia's policies, and reverted them here, but the user proceeded to undo my revert here without providing any explanation while insulting me. I want to assume good faith from the user's intentions, but find it difficult to do so, based on their interactions with other editors and single-purpose accounts such as User:Yan Beyong editing Zhu's article. I don't know if their WP:SPA behavior is due to WP:COI or WP:PAID, but it seems like this editor is unwilling to collaborate and is WP:NOTHERE. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To avoid a block User:WikiWizard88 needs to stop reverting and start collaborating on the article talk page. Past experience tells me that that is unlikely. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've actually just seen that @WikiWizard88 has reverted an edit made by @100.36.106.199 since this conversation, without engaging on the article talk page or offering any meaningful edit summary. I will attempt to undo the damage but I suspect it will just happen again. BobbieCarynBevis (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the two accounts you mention (@WikiWizard88 and @Yan Beyong), one has clearly identified itself as Zhu's mother, so I suspect WP:COI for both. BobbieCarynBevis (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That 88 in the username is also... concerning. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are perfectly innocent explanations for that; nothing about their edits suggests anything other than a COI. --JBL (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there are innocent explanations. That's why neo-Nazis use it as a dog whistle, to pretend there's nothing bad happening. Note I am not accusing this user of any such views, but having that in a username is always going to cause eyebrows to raise due to the association. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this editor had made any edits whatsoever that even vaguely hinted at an interest in racial politics, I would have agreed with you. But literally this editor is here for exactly one thing, and that thing is to promote one particular person, and consequently your comment is an irrelevant side-track away from the actual issue. --JBL (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Monarchy of Canada

    I propose that User:Miesianiacal be topic banned from monarchy of Canada, either broadly or more narrowly from the base article. It shouldn't require a minimum of two RfCs (Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Meaning of reside and Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?) to insert the simple, obvious and uncontentious fact that the Canadian monarch lives in the UK. Yet, we are forced to endure bludgeoning of debates[121], disruptive cite tagging,[122][123][124] and WP:POINTy tendentious editing from this single editor every time any other editor tries to edit an article owned by Miesianiacal, who is responsible for more than 75% of edits to the page.[125] The article is a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth that the King of Canada is Canadian. It will only improve when the influence of this editor is removed. DrKay (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be two allegations here. There's bludgeoning etc at Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?. This has diffs and looking at the thread seems to have a basis. But the second half of the post broadens out to a WP:OWN accusation and being responsible for "a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research", but there are no diffs for that. The former (for a longstanding editor) deserves a warning. The latter needs more evidence to be actioned to a full TBAN or even a PBAN. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were named after royalty. I reverted most of the edits, as they were unsourced and probably not true, but not without pushback. You can see one of the discussions at Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?. --Magnolia677 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa: It took me ages to track down, but I recently removed 3 bits of original research not found in the citations from the article, and they were all added by Miesianiacal or his previous account: Removed citation added by Miesianiacal's old account: [126]; Removed citation added by Miesianiacal's old account: [127]; Removed unverified claim added by Miesianiacal: [128]. I've only really looked at the first two paragraphs of the Residences section, so there could be more elsewhere. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edits are from 14/15 years ago. I don't think they would or could be used to support action now. DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'age' of an edit does not necessarily matter, given that there's always the possibility of erroneous information remaining in an article for years to come. Keivan.fTalk 23:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support narrow sanctions, if not an article ban then a revert restriction or talk page interaction ban. I don't think a warning will be adequate. This is essentially the same issue that I raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive467#User:Miesianiacal reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: No violation) and that was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III. Miesianiacal gets away with his behaviour because he acts within the letter of the rules while ignoring their spirit; he knows how to game the system. When challenged, he goes on the attack instead of addressing his own behaviour: for example accusing me of harassment even though I was required to notify him[129] or refusing to listen when challenged on civility: [130][131]. Before IncidentArchive1127 there were multiple requests for comment at Charles III, which closed against him; he then went to third opinion, which was rejected, and then to the dispute resolution noticeboard, which was rejected (diffs are all at IncidentArchive1127). So, he went forum-shopping to the administrators' noticeboard with a cherry-picked selection of edits that were better than his own behaviour. That is his typical operating style: delay, dismiss, attack, and never surrender. The tactic is to pursue endless circular debate, blame everyone else, and refuse to listen to or accept any counter-argument or advice. The same thing that happened at Charles III is happening at Monarchy of Canada: we are forced to go through multiple requests for comment to make the simplest change (with the result that editors wonder what we're doing: [132]). Once the discussion starts, we then suffer through his sabotage of the debate, such as refusing to accept sources that disprove his argument, for example [133] backtracking from [134]. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe there are also WP:OWN issues at Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada, particularly the former. Miesianiacal has strenuously objected to updating the articles to include references to opinion polls taken in the past two years that show there is greater support for removing the monarchy than there is for retaining it. (see [135]) and Republicanism in Canada (see Talk:Republicanism in Canada). At present the polls cited in Monarchism in Canada are at least 15 years old.

    In Republicanism in Canada he claimed this wording was not neutral: ""Polls conducted on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown in 2022 and 2023, following the accession of Charles III, suggested that a majority of Canadians think there should be a referendum on the future of the monarchy and that more Canadians favour becoming a republic than do retaining the monarchy" (he reverted similar wording in the monarchism article.) Instead, he wrote this wording which mentions only that polling occurred without any reference to the polling result. His "neutral" wording was:"Polls have been conducted on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown."Wellington Bay (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What, if any, administrative or community action would you support? Celia Homeford (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom? and my brain attempted to leave my skull. I have never seen such a nonsensical collection of distorted logic, and yes, a narrow article ban should be considered for at least one editor (the one mentioned in the lead here). Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for Miesianiacal from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. If this type of behavior migrates to other topic areas, broader restrictions may be required. This is classic POV pushing. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not support There are a multitude of pieces including several articles and different conversations in this accusation, however, I did read one (the question of residency), and I am not comfortable with the idea of sanctioning a long-time editor with considerable expertise in the area simply for being firm on a specific point on a Talk page which would seem to me to undermine the point of the Talk page in the first place, and in the spirit of lively debate with a minimum standard of decorum, as that's how we elucidate (ideally) the best way forward in good-faith, as opposed to single-editor dictatorship or mob-rule, both of which are to be strenuously avoided.
      Second, the article states that Charles III lives in the UK last I checked, so I'm not quite sure what the core issue is. Clearly no one is currently standing in the way of portraying that fact.
      In this case's Talk Page, there is a valid logical argument to made on the important distinction on the separation of office from an individual person. A slightly humorous example would be that, just because the current Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau, the official residence of the Prime Minister is 24 Sussex, and Justin Trudeau is also the coach of the little league team the Ottawa Cubs, that does not mean that the official residence of the Coach of the Ottawa Cubs is 24 Sussex, nor even that Justin Trudeau even lives at 24 Sussex. So, in this case, the monarch of the UK is, from Canada's point of view, a foreign head of state. The King of Canada does not have any official residences in the UK, but the King of Canada does have official residences in Canada. Where Charles III sleeps at night, or where the King of the UK as a foreign head of state lives has no bearing on the status or the location of a Canadian official residence. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that was the sticking point or the point that was trying to me made, and as I said, I think such a point is valid as is the logic behind it. And so the consensus I believe that is reflected in the article, or should be, is that the King of Canada has official residences in Canada, and that Charles III himself predominantly lives in the UK. No one should be censured for contributing to that consensus.
      Is it a little bit arcane and pedantic? Yes. But that is often the nature of deep-dive discussions of certain topics, particularly ones swirling around constitutional politics.
      As there was a bit of a swirl of allegations, please feel free to be more specific if you feel I've missed the most salient or fundamental issue under discussion here. trackratte (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I take it all are aware these are called "Canada’s Official Residences" would be best if terms are not madeup. Would help things alot I think. Moxy🍁 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per Cullen328. The bludgeoning has to stop. Look, I understand the kind of pedantry that surrounds the issue. My first few years on this project were almost solely devoted to peerage matters. But this is too much. Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support some sort of action if Miesianical doesn't strongly commit to accepting feedback and accepting consensus does not always line up with his personal slant. On one hand, Miesianiacal has contributed a lot of content on royalty in Canada, which is mostly good, and deserves some shout-outs for that. And... I get it. There are some articles on Wiki where having a "guard dog" editor hazing new edits closely can actually be a good thing (medical articles most famously, perhaps). If Miesianiacal was providing "stewardship" that occasionally was a tad tendentious, I get it. However... I'm not sure that's really the case here, and rather Miesianiacal himself is the issue, inserting POV slants in articles that do not accord with the sources, which makes any OWNership concerns much more pressing. So yes, this is ANI not a content board, but it's relevant, so let's look at Miesianiacal's grasp of content. Take a look at this old revision of Monarchies in the Americas for example: it distinguishes "American monarchies" from "Foreign monarchies" as if there was some sort of substantive difference between the King of Denmark ruling Greenland from afar and Charles III ruling Jamaica from afar. Which, strictly speaking, there is a difference of course, but a wildly overblown one that is hardly section-heading level worthy. Or take the line "Most pre-Columbian cultures of the Americas developed and flourished for centuries under monarchical systems of government." Totally bonkers and unsourced, and tying the "flourishing" to the monarchial system of government. More generally, we simply do not know the details of the government system of "most pre-Columbian cultures." It's just wild speculation. That's just the start of the problems with the old article. (I'm picking on it specifically because it was at GAR a bit ago and I took a look into it, where it was wildly overplaying certain "monarchies" and their level of support, like treating Arucania & Patagonia as if it were a real state and not a fantasy.) I'd argue that all of the provincial level "Monarchies of XYZ" are problematic for example, with the possible exception of Monarchy in Quebec (although... I'd really want to triple-check all the sources talking about just how much the Quebecois loved their monarch back in the day as being valid and not Anglophone Canada wishful thinking.) Take a look at Monarchy in Alberta, for example, which should probably be reformulated into something else as it's a lot of talking about nothing in particular. A very small number of people turned out for some event honoring the Queen? Stop the presses. Okay, back to conduct: Miesianical being a Canadian monarchist isn't a problem, exactly. But going against their wishes is really not worth it due to the risk of bludgeoning talk page conversations or edit wars (the one time I did, on something I considered a slam dunk on sourcing grounds, felt like pulling teeth, but also happened ages ago at this point, so not worth rehashing). If Miesianiacal can just seriously commit to toning it down a bit and being willing to take the L when others disagree, then no need to do anything other than verify he's keeping the commitment. But otherwise, yeah, maybe time for a topic ban. (And per above, if a topic ban happened, I'd strongly encourage Miesianiacal not to continue the exact same behavior at other Commonwealth monarchies- going around to give the same treatment to Monarchy of The Bahamas subarticles would not really solve the problems here.) SnowFire (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    158.223.0.0/16 and 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64

    Since (at least?) January 2023, the editor has been using these IP ranges to regularly make small edits to (mainly?) Chinese/PRC-related articles. Many of their edits are poor (changes without providing sources, introducing factual errors when the sources are provided, using Wikipedia as a source.) There also seems to be a nationalistic bend as well, and based on their edit comments they identify very strongly with the PRC. Their latest edit looks suspiciously like an attempt to remove something that makes the PRC look bad ([[Special:Diff/1214435187); the modified paragraph was actually plagiarized - not by this editor - from the BBC ([136]), which does indeed say civilian and military. I have tried communicating with them on User_talk:158.223.122.211 and User_talk:158.223.166.10, and have received no acknowledgement. 158.223.122.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been heavily used as of late, and they did reply to another editor via that IP earlier this month. I'm not sure how else to get their attention, especially with the IP hopping in play. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edited for missing word. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange - they've interacted with me before here. I believe they read edit summaries more so than their talk page. At the time of my reply to them, I hadn't looked further into their contributions. Still doesn't excuse a year or more of poor sourcing and factual errors, sad to see it's wider spread than just the one article I found them at. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Plagiarism of flag list page

    Superior6296 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    On 18 August 2023 I created the page User:Red Phoenician/List of Lebanese flags as a sandbox page which I planned to publish once completed. On 2 March 2024 Superior6296 created the page List_of_Lebanese_flags which is essentially a copy paste of my own page with some additions. This is a blatant case of copying without attribution (WP:COPYWITHIN) which goes against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Obvious examples of this besides the copying of the layout can be seen in specific flag descriptions such as the flag of prince Ibrahim and the Mardaite flag. Furthermore, much of the information is unsourced (as it was ripped from my sandbox which is a WIP) or blatantly wrong such as the claim that the medieval flag of Deir al-Qamar is still in use today as well as the inclusion of fictional flags such as the one of the Seljuk Empire as well as the one of the Mount Lebanon Emirate (1697–1842). I have noticed that this user has a repeated habit of doing this with other flag list pages [137], as well as a lack of communication with other users, which makes me suspect them of possibly being a bot or simply copy pasting pages without reviewing them or adding any reliable sources at all. I believe WP:BLOWITUP is the best option for this matter as it is a gross example of plagiarism and it will allow me to republish the page with the correct information backed by reliable sources. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That is very bizarre. But indeed this editor has also been been warned ([138], [139]) about creating or massively expanding lists of flags articles with very little attention to verifiability or WP:OR; and as far as I can tell, they have continued the same editing behaviour with zero communication whatsoever (in nearly 700 edits, zero talk page responses and zero edit summaries). R Prazeres (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SheriffIsInTown

    War Wounded (talk · contribs), first deleted sourced material from BLP Zaheer Ahmad Babar, claiming the source The Pakistan Military Monitor is not reliable. When I posted the message on their talk page, User:SheriffIsInTown jumped in, asserting that it's a blog and should be removed. I suggested them taking the matter to WP:RSN for further evaluation if they believed the source was not RS. However, instead of pursuing that route, SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) choose to remove the sourced material altogether. While I acknowledge that the discussion on whether the source is reliable or not was brief and could be reopened, I am concerned about their unilateral removal without further discussion. --Saqib (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just FYI, when you notify an editor about a discussion here, please add a header. I had to search for the notification which came at the end of a different discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a BLP article, and the sourced material under discussion pertains to allegations of corruption. I genuinely believe that the source being utilized is highly questionable. "The Pakistan Military Monitor" lacks notability by WP standards and resembles more of a blog post. The OP has significant experience with BLP articles and is well-versed in Wikipedia's rigorous sourcing standards for such content. They also possess the maturity to refrain from escalating every minor content dispute to ANI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe I have significant experience with BLP articles and is well-versed in Wikipedia's rigorous sourcing standards,, then you should have taken the issue to RSN as I insisted repeatedly. Instead, you decided to remove it outright. I still insist you revert your edit and reopen the discussion at RSN, and I will welcome the outcome, whatever it may be. --Saqib (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I was the one who replied to your RSN question about this source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 429#The Pak Military Monitor) I'll add here I doubt this should be used for BLP details. BLP says Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Although bias doesn't make a source unreliable, a source a so obviously biased against the subject should probably be avoided in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe with attribution to the source, but that should be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: I disagree with dismissing the source as unreliable simply because it is from India. We cannot assume that it only reports anti-Pakistani military news stories. In fact, the story reported by The Pak Military Monitor was also covered by a credible Pakistani news source The Friday Times. Despite limitations on press freedom in Pakistan, this Pakistani news outlet The Friday Times somehow managed to publish this story. Given the context of Pakistan's media landscape, it's highly unlikely for a Pakistani news source to report on such sensitive topics, especially those not favored by the Pakistani military. These news outlets often face targeting, harassment, abduction, or even violence against their journalists. Anyways, upon reviewing the The Pak Military Monitor website, I found that most of their news stories are factually accurate and not merely opinion pieces. Therefore, I believe we should reconsider the source at RSN. --Saqib (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with dismissing the source as unreliable simply because it is from India nope never said that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to @SheriffIsInTown's comment where he described it as a blog post hosted by an Indian propaganda outlet. --Saqib (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We use biased sources all the time. I see no issue with using an Indian source for Pakistani subjects just because it is from India. However, I agree with @ActivelyDisinterested that extreme caution should be used and if the source is to be used it must be attributed to the source in the article, not just cited. --ARoseWolf 12:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested and ARoseWolf: Regarding your suggestion to attribute the source, it's worth noting that The Pak Military Monitor is not the sole reporter on this matter; as I said above The Friday Times also covered the story. Therefore, attributing one or both sources wouldn't make sense. We could continue this discussion on the article's talk page, but given its low traffic, this discussion might not garner much attention there. --Saqib (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter that they are not the sole source. We are talking about a BLP and its better the ere on the side of caution. That's my take. We shouldn't be having this discussion at all, here. Sheriffsintown did nothing wrong and neither did War Wounded. --ARoseWolf 12:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replied at the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested and ARoseWolf: I just want to confirm if he's interpreting you correctly or if there's anything I'm overlooking. --Saqib (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want the edit warring to stop and I've stated as much. There is no reason to re-add the content until consensus is met. If it is not re-added then it will not be removed, again. If some Uninvolved editor happens to reinstate the content then it should not be removed until discussions have concluded. No one is right in content edit wars. --ARoseWolf 17:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. I have not reinstated the censored content following its removal by War Wounded. --Saqib (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Saqib: why is this here? At the top it says: This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. How does one revert and three (reasonable) posts to a talk page discussion possibly qualify? DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa: @SheriffIsInTown and I have had disagreements in the past on some occasions, and when he deleted the material despite my disagreement, I felt it was necessary to consider this avenues instead of engaging in edit warring. I'm not sure what other options I had in this situation. --Saqib (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not a recourse for when you can't get your way with someone. See the content dispute aspects of WP:Dispute Resolution for that. Are you claiming a "chronic, intractable behavioral" problem? If so, you need to provide diffs. DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not claiming "chronic, intractable behavioral" issues, but rather suggesting a tendency toward wikilawyering or perhaps WP:CPP. I typically focus my time on writing and expanding articles rather than making comments on ANI or content disputes, so I may lack experience in these areas. If you believe this matter should be addressed elsewhere, please advise on the appropriate course of action to resolve the raised issue. --Saqib (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, you've opened 8 complaints on this page, 2 this month alone, and have made 92 edits to it.[140]. I would say you're pretty experienced. I'm surprised at 48k edits that you say you're inexperienced with content disputes. The link I gave you above is a starting point. DeCausa (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh man! considering my absence from ANI from August 2020 to February 2024, I believe it's a significant enough duration to remember how content disputes work.--Saqib (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not for content disputes, which is what you have (and barely that -just one revert) with SheriffIsInTown. DeCausa (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa: I'd like to draw your attention to this lengthy discussion and then this latest edit. and given that both War Wounded and SheriffIsInTown hv a history of WP:GANG. and now that @War Wounded has removed the content once again. Additionally both of them commented simultaneously and despite the extensive discussion on the BLPs talk page, its evident that they're unwilling to WP:LISTEN and instead engage in WP:CENSOR. So I'd like to ask you should I continue engage with them, or do I've alternative options to consider? --Saqib (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The course of action you have is to refrain adding the disputed material only referenced to a questionable source per WP:RSSELF and WP:BLP until there is a consensus that the source is reliable. There is a clear guidance to remove poorly referenced information at once from BLP articles and there is a clear guidance to not include any content about a living person using a self published source such as this. Regarding your WP:GANG accusation, have you never seen two editors editing simultaneously in this big wide world? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the need to repeat the same statement across different pages? You've already expressed same view here, and it's been noted. What's the rationale behind posting the same comment again? --Saqib (talk · contribs) 20:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Different forum has different audience, it also included reply to your gang accusation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, It's quite evident that you and @War Wounded are WP:CIRCUS. If needed, can provide diffs. But I'd rather not delve into that issue at the moment. Let's stay focused on the main topic, which is determining the reliability of this source. And also since our discussion on the BLP's talk page has become somewhat heated and we haven't reached a resolution, I'd like to ask @DeCausa: for guidance on our next steps. --Saqib (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some diffs 1, 2 of me ganging up with you against someone and you appreciating me for ganging up with you. Then here we are, you piggybacking on previous ANI to support topic ban on me, taking 29 elected MP articles to AFD, filing a frivolous ANI for one revert, and then reporting subsequent edit to a different page. Although every conflict has two sides, you got same amount of mud on your hands as me but did I ever report you in any forum? (I do care about others time) Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just for the record, a discussion has been initiated on the Talk:Zaheer_Ahmad_Babar#The_Pakistan_Military_Monitor. I encourage others to share their opinions so that we can come to a resolution and avoid revisiting this issue later on.

    • The OP is not being honest when they say they do not have experience with dispute resolution procedures. They know every nook and cranny of Wikipedia. They have been to all dispute resolution forums in the past. Their claim about they have been absent from ANI for a while that is why they forgot how dispute resolution works is a bogus one as well. The editor was very active in Pakistani BLP area before I started contributing in that area. They see me as a competition or main opposition in that area and they found an ANI report an easy way to sideline me. A while ago, they were having a content dispute with me at 2024 Pakistani general election and as a retaliation they took all articles recently created by me (29 in total) to AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirza Akhtar Baig) in one go while knowing very well that they were wrong to do so, this considerably wasted my time and other editors time. This was a worst example of a battleground behavior. They are in general very quick to report opposing editors to ANI without exhausting other options. I request the community and admins to discourage them by WP:BOOMERANG of some manner so they do not continue this behavior going forward. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be taking this personally. It's rather amusing when you say I see you as my competition or main opposition. In fact, I've been seeking your opinions because I value your expertise in some areas, and I even apologized to you recently when I felt I might have disappointed you. Regardless, I never anticipated making you my opponent by filing this report. There's nothing personal here. I still respect you and your opinions, and I hope we can collaborate on some articles in the future. But I think more important to be honest and Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade even if it irritate your follow editors. --Saqib (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's quite perplexing that SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs) now suddenly decides to delete content without any prior objection, that was added by me as per this suggestion of @Borgenland: about 10 days ago. This arbitrary removal raises questions about their motivations. Given this recent discussion, I anticipated that SheriffIsInTown might retaliate and attempt to further provoke me. This pattern of behavior is not conducive to productive editing and undermines the collaborative spirit of WP. --Saqib (talk · contribs) 19:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you have an ongoing ANI discussion or conflict, does that mean everyone else should cease contributing to any other articles until all pending issues are resolved? I outlined my reasoning for the removal in the summary line. The content already exists in the main article; this page should only contain a summary. This decision was not directed against you personally. I would have done the same at any other time as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as usual, you didn't bother to check if the material you're deleting is actually present in the main article. Are you intentionally trying to waste our time? It's really frustrating to see our time and work go to waste like this, especially when there's no effort made to relocate the content properly. Also why didn't you raise your objections on this talk page when @Borgenland: suggested including this part? Instead of lecturing me on consensus here, why don't you take the time to engage in discussion and reach a consensus here? Please stop making unilateral decisions! --Saqib (talk · contribs) 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This frivolous ANI was started by you so I am not sure who is wasting others time here. I did not know that you will report my every edit to a mutually edited page to ANI and waste people’s time with it otherwise I would have sought your permission. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you both noticed that this discussion has devolved into bickering between the two of you and other editors have stayed away? This isn't a battleground where one editor gets the editor they disagree with blocked. You are not winning over supporters here. You are both behaving badly and other editors don't want to get pulled into your dispute which seems personal and not based on differences of opinon or interpretation of policy. Find a way to live with each other or you could both end up being blocked. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the advice, I will try not to reply anymore. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, we can conclude this discussion as it seems to be veering off course. I hope its safe to initiate a new discussion at RSN to gather opinions on whether this source TPMM qualifies as RS, as there appears to be limited engagement here.--Saqib (talk · contribs) 07:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    COI editing, edit warring, and either WP:SOCKPUPPET or WP:MEATPUPPETRY going on here

    IP first persistently reinstates their edits on Changi Airport, claiming to be an airport employee, after I warned them to disclose their COI and discuss the dispute on their talk page. After ignoring one of my responses, Cankin3 (who conveniently was registered today), persistently reinstates the same exact edits, ignoring my WP:SOCKPUPPET an WP:MEATPUPPET warning. I suspect that either these two editors are the same person, or the IP recruited another employee of the same company to carry out the same exact edits. In all cases, both haven't bothered to respond to the points I brought up, thus administration attention is needed to either temporarily protect the page or block the two editors. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An airport IP has hundreds of people logging in so unless those are the only editors contributing then it's likely two different people. NYC Guru (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP traces to singapore. WHOIS_report. NYC Guru (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the IP and the registered user are the same person, if they're doing it to purposely give the impression that they are unrelated accounts or somehow trying to deceive, then yes, it's socking. But your description of the activity doesn't support that, and neither do the user contributions when compared. Seems much more like an IP deciding to register (which is actually encouraged). Address the CoI and edit warring, but don't accuse the user of socking based on this description. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per this diff, Cankin3 wrote "After Googling Changi Airport, it is true that Changi Aiport uses the Changi Airport Group Logo" while re-adding the same exact edits of the IP, giving the impression that the account "agrees" with the IP. That's what made me suspect socking in the first place. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to notify the 3RR noticeboard as they need to be blocked for edit warring. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, protected for 3 days to allow for discussion on talk page, since the only discussion on the talk page ended with "Yes, we should change the logo." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raval77 again

    Raval77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I raised an issue way back in July 2020 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042, if you look at his contrib history you will see on 17 March 2024 Raval created 30 new articles like Kelly Branton, none of which show how GNG was established, this whole situation reminds me of another user who was banned for creating multiple stub articles. I really don't know how long this has been going on, but I consider it a serious issue to raise again and way too much workload for any one admin to deal with. I trust someone will look into it again as I don't think any warnings will help. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it strange that he has suddenly stopped editing after I posted. Because it seemed a pretty constant pattern up until now. Govvy (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Raval77 here.
    I would like to tell something from my side. I've started creating biographies of powerlifters (medallists of world or continental events), because it's one of the World Games (quite big sport event) sports and I find it might be useful for other viewers. In my articles I've sourced to sites like goodlift.info or allpowerlifting.com, because these sites contains a lot of infos about these athletes (date of birth, results, etc.) and I think it's one of the reliable sources (I don't know where I can find other websites with informations of these kind of athletes that can be confirmed as good sources -
    openpowerlifting.org only comes to my mind) . Maybe I should refer to the official results on the federation's website??. I have included links to sites that I think are trustworthy (these are large databases and run quite professionally). If in this case I referred to the wrong sites, it was my mistake, but the information that could be obtained there in my opinion was worth referring to (and you need to refer to some).
    Thank you for reading and your time
    Regards, Raval77 Raval77 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Raval77, these sources sound questionable. It might be worth starting a discussion about them at WP:RSN where editors evaluate the quality of sources and databases. Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it is generally discouraged to source biographies to databases only. There have been previous discussions about this (and indeed a large number of athlete stubs have been deleted). If the athletes are truly notable, there will be coverage about them that is not restricted to databases. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Goofball seems NOTHERE

    Reported. Blocked. Closed. Next! Amortias (T)(C) 18:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    PinkiePieBestPony001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    New user seems under the impression that Wikipedia is their personal sandbox to generate memes in, unfortunately. Maybe 28 edits is too few to decide they are WP:NOTHERE, but I'm going to say best to nip this one in the bud. Remsense诉 17:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can already tell they are NOTHERE based on their userpage when their description specifies themselves as a vandal and what pages they have vandalized. I'm sure this can give the green light for an admin to block. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Widr blocked, I assume, in response to our posts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    82.84.225.97 and genres

    82.84.225.97 has a chronic history of adding/changing music genres either without citing a source or adding a source that does not explicitly state a genre ([141][142][143]). For example, on '74-'75, they argue that just because a source ([144]) mentions several words that pertain to rock music (i.e. "soft" and "folk", which are describing ballads and influences, respectively), that means it is a soft rock and folk rock song. Furthermore, another genre they added, alternative rock, is not even hinted at in the source. Yet, they claim that just because Italian is their native language, they know what the source is trying to say, and they are starting to exhibit disruptive behavior without utilizing talk pages. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 18:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting draft article by making false accusations of conflict of interest and false statement that artist doesn’t have notability

    DoubleGrazing deleted my draft article saying that it was promotional and made a false accusation that I have a conflict of interest.

    I am a volunteer with no conflict of interest and I am not receiving any sort of compensation.

    My subject is a valid notable artist and my article was neutral toned and purely factual while providing ample evidence of notability per the Wikipedia notability standards.

    Please restore my article which was several hours of work. If there are specific edits that need to be me, then let me know.

    Deleting my article in this fashion was rude, and disingenuous, and offensive.Sevdabmusic (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You failed to properly alert the user. I did it for you Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 19:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Thanks @Babysharkboss2.)
    @Sevdabmusic: I didn't delete anything; I couldn't, even if I wanted to, as I'm not an admin.
    For anything else, I would refer readers to Sevdabmusic's talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    no problem Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 19:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that Sevdabmusic has now been blocked indefinitely by Justlettersandnumbers. --Kinu t/c 20:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sevdabmusic, How on earth did you manage to take and upload File:Sevda B.jpg as an "own work", self published image without having a conflict of interest? The photo is quite clearly a selfie? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is astonishing to me that an actually notable musical performer would want to be portrayed with such a crappy selfie. Look at that arm! Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People who take selfies never get their good side when doing so. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 00:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Melvin Hudson

    (non-admin closure) Melvin Hudson was blocked with an expiration time of indefinite Polygnotus (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    He has been engaged in at least two unrelated conflicts with me and a couple of other users - you can see the details on his talk page - making personal attacks and irrational accusations of transphobia against people who haven't said a word on LGBT issues, and on top of it all, now he is reverting other people's posts at the Teahouse, too.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm getting a feeling that this might be a sock of some kind. The account was created today and they immediately jumped into undoing other people's edits and doling out warnings. They are deleting threads about them on two different boards (the EWN thread is misplaced, however) even after being warned. I'm particularly perturbed by this comment which indicates bad faith. — Czello (music) 10:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An eighth deletion which includes another bad faith accusation of transphobia. — Czello (music) 10:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Questionable content on user talk

    Nonsense (?) not in English sent from user to himself: User_talk:Nikki2428. And generally weird test edits (?) seen in page history. User will be notified shortly after I send this. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry! Nikki2428 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why did you try and delete this report? Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've spent about 40 edits just goofing around. I just posted some links on your talk page, please read them and figure out something worthwhile to do. Thanks :)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikki2428 is off to a pretty bad start but since all their edits were to their own user and talk pages, they also haven't shown a tendency to do much harm (unless they're gaming their way to an editing permission). @InternetowyGołąb: did you really escalate this all the way to ANI without first...asking them what they're up to? City of Silver 19:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @City of Silver Maybe that was bit too far... I came from foreign wiki, mainly do small technical stuff, and so I wanted someone more experienced to deal with it. I thought a sysop notification would be a good choice. If this is NOT the right order of things, I'm sorry for wasting your time. I will change my modus operandi for future incidents like this. InternetowyGołąb (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine. If they keep making nonsensical changes or if they start contentiously editing semiprotected articles in a few days, that'll prove they're here to do harm and this would probably be the right place to report them. City of Silver 19:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in romanized Telugu. It might be an account that more than one person is sharing. Inverted sock? JFHJr (㊟) 03:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "This is a chat platform". JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking further back in the longer talks with self/selves, I'm wondering if it's actually Tamil, or if things are just spelled to avoid legibility. I'm not fluent in either Telugu or Tamil, but any South Indian contributor might be able to make sense of this. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Single-purpose account devoted to attacking GuardianH

    Guardiansiqisverylow is an attack account created to harass GuardianH. The user name was clearly chosen as an attack on GuardianH. Their contributions consist of personal attacks.[145],[146]

    Please can Guardiansiqisverylow be (1) given an indefinite block, (2) their contributions be revdelled, and (3) have a checkuser done on them, because it is obviously a sock account.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears two socks in this drawer need to go out with the wash like the others, Dsjfajs3248 and Kakaronen. All the others were specifically created with user names attacking GuardianH. --ARoseWolf 11:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked the obvious socks per WP:DUCK. No need for me to use CU. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Korentio appears to be another sock of the same person.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. --ARoseWolf 15:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nuked that one too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Digging back a little further and I think these are all socks of Korensho. They had a disagreement with GuardianH in October last year and Bishonen warned them for edit warring. They last edited their user talk page to tell Bish they deleted their account and not to respond. A little more than an hour later Kakkisj, the first sock, showed up on GuardianH's talk page. --ARoseWolf 15:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated WP:NOR violations (and general unsourced additions) by Gabrielcheong

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

    This user has persistently added unsourced content and personal analyses into several Shinkansen articles (1, 2, 3, 4), despite numerous warnings. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term abuse surrounding Sukavich Rangsitpol

    I'm seeking admin actions to deter the long-term abuse surrounding Sukavich Rangsitpol, Thita Manitkul (now a draft at User:RJFF/Thita Manitkul), and related articles. The suggestion, as raised at Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol#This entire mess, is to indefinitely semi-protect the article (and maybe also its talk page and the draft as well).

    Background: Sukavich Rangsitpol is a former Thai MP and government minister, who satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline. His daughter, Thita Manitkul, is also a former MP, also likely notable (if borderline). Articles and drafts about them have long been subjected to POV-pushing COI edits by a huge sock farm (logged under Nafeby633), as well as meatpuppets and IP editors. Thita Manitkul has also in real life pursued legal action against established editors of the Thai Wikipedia who reverted some of those edits, and advertised said action as further threats.

    Considering the disruptive actions and harassment and threats made surrounding pages related to the subjects on Thai Wikimedia projects, the Thai community recently (in February) agreed to implement a topic ban on any articles about the family on Thai Wikimedia projects.

    While those are drastic measures that I don't expect would receive support here on Enwiki, I believe that the above-mentioned actions and threats clearly demonstrate that the subjects and their associates have no intention of constructively contributing to or engaging with Wikipedia. Normally, temporary protections and blocks may be enough to deter damage to Wikipedia, but these editors are incessant, and no one is watching the affected pages, so they always come back sooner or later after protection expires, and the article has gone months without the damage being detected.

    User:RJFF, the creator of the first good version and only major good-faith editor to the page, recently suggested at the article talk page that the article be more or less stubbified and protected to prevent further disruption, given that otherwise dealing with these unencyclopedic additions is just not worth the time. I agree, and we have trimmed down the Sukavich Rangsitpol article to the most basic, verifiable and uncontroversial information. (An IP has since attempted to restore the unencyclopedic material, which I have reverted.) I have also blanked the Thita Manitkul draft page, as I didn't find any good version to revert to.

    Request: I'm requesting that, per the talk page discussion, Sukavich Rangsitpol be indefinitely semi-protected. Please also strongly consider indefinitely semi-protecting the talk page, as the disruptive editors have a habit of spamming the irrelevant content on the talk page when the page is protected. On my own accord, I'm also asking that the same protection be applied to User:RJFF/Thita Manitkul as well.

    I would also suggest considering further actions to minimize disruption and spam by this LTA. An edit filter would be desirable as they tend to insert spam mentions into other articles where they are of little relevance. A zero-tolerance approach, blocking on sight IPs and editors who demonstrate clearly consistent behavioural patterns, should also be considered, considering that they are clearly WP:not here to build an encyclopedia and a threat to the community. These are suggestions that probably need further discussion.

    Further background: Articles on Thita Manitkul and Sukavich Rangsitpol were first created by the above-mentioned sock farm in September/October 2016. One was deleted following AfD, the other draftified and G12 speedy deleted (while an MfD was underway).

    An unrelated version of Sukavich Rangsitpol was created by User:RJFF in November 2018, and the deleted Thita Manitkul page was also undeleted/userfied at RJFF's request, though RJFF apparently never got round to editing that page. Soon after, the pages began to see incessant edits by IPs and more socks, who were intent on (1) removing reliably sourced negative aspects about the subject, and (2) inserting blocks of extensive, irrelevant, likely copyvio quotations that had no place in the article. They have also been spamming irrelevant mentions into other articles, most of which have gone undetected and have not been removed (or were re-inserted after removal), such as Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia) (Special:Diff/1194270333), Bang Na Expressway (Special:Diff/882855549) School-Based Management Policy (Special:Diff/919233677). (The LTA has also inserted their spam into other sister projects, including the Simple English Wikipedia and Wikiquote. But that's not something that can be addressed here.)

    In 2019, User:Yosakrai (who was found at SPI to be Unrelated, inactive since 2019) and several IPs started extensive talk page and noticeboard discussions that led to an RfC over the negative elements covered in the article in relation to BLP concerns. The discussion found weak consensus for inclusion, but no further constructive action was taken to improve the article, which eventually reverted to the IP spam. Clearly, no one cares enough about this article to be properly watching it.

    In the recent trimming, I elected to remove all potentially controversial material, whether positive or negative, to avoid any loose ends that could raise BLP concerns (despite the old RfC). No one has cared to improve the article since 2019, no one is going to now. Any time spent further fixing it or entertaining tendentious requests from the COI editors is going to be time wasted.

    --Paul_012 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi-protected Sukavich Rangsitpol for one year. Although it is clear that there has been disruptive editing for years, I do not think that is severe enough to justify indefinite protection. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated disruptive editing by User:Ugaas Raage

    Ugaas Raage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Repeated edit warring and disruptive editing, largely consisting of borderline hagiographical changes to articles about Somalia leaders. Pretty much every edit by them ever is evidence of this, but here are some pages where their conduct is particularly egregious:


    Mohammad Ali Samatar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Mohammed Abdullah Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Siad Barre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User @Nirva20 also catalogued some of this behavior at WP:NPOV/Noticeboard § User:Ugaas Raage (notified of this neutral point of view noticeboard discussion). Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This was hastily reverted but should probably be revdel'd. [147] Furthermore an IP ban on the troll who keeps creating sock puppets to troll this page might be in order. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That user (LegalNotice88 (talk · contribs)) as well as Benchmarkingsalad (talk · contribs) are pretty obviously socks of ShownDownl (talk · contribs). - MrOllie (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Psychologist Guy

    (non-admin closure)Nothing to action here.Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Moved from WP:AN (Special:Diff/1214870461)

    This user states they are in the top 3000 editors of articles, and promotes a biased viewpoint toward vegetarianism. They have been editing Wikipedia pages based on their views and not based on what data the latest scientific literature provides. 170.232.227.254 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting that the first part is true (#2322 at the moment). Not sure if there's a case to do anything here, though. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:NOTHERE Promotional advocacy regarding Nancy D. Erbe

    Surance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An account wholly dedicated to promoting anything related to Nancy D. Erbe, a professor at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and adding her minor visits and other activities as subsections on multiple articles. Since this editor created Erbe's article in 2014, they've turned it into a puff-filled résumé: a repository of awards, accomplishments, and dozens of miscellaneous images (which the editor all took themself). Despite these additions being reverted by multiple editors since 2021, editor continues to make these promotional additions.

    Additions of blatantly promotional subsections on university pages titled "Noted scholar visit" that give a puff-filled description of some time Erbe made a visit to the school. Most of them are the same promotional message copy and pasted to different pages:

    Additions of images/unsourced descriptions of Erbe to "notable faculty/alumni", etc. pages despite Erbe not being major enough to be included (these have been reverted multiple times):

    Many more I haven't listed that can be seen on their edit log. I've reverted the image repository at Erbe but editor just reverts it back with no edit summary everytime. Other editors have reverted these additions too, but they haven't got the message. WP:NOTHERE behavior dedicated to promotional advocacy. GuardianH (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not commenting on everything, but I opened Nancy D. Erbe, and surely that image in the preview/top of the article is not properly licensed? I mean the source is also "Template:Csudh", whatever that's supposed to mean, but even if it wasn't it's a screenshot of an image in a website, there's even a tooltip in it...
    Ironically, about other images they've uploaded like :File:Nancy_Erbe-UFRRJ-Rio.JPG, if their claim of it being their own work is accurate then that would clearly show a real life connection with the subject.
    – 2804:F14:809E:DF01:307C:AF3C:87B6:EFA0 (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In 29 April 2023 they created a different account (Mardi1123), they used that account (as can be seen from their talk page) to write a draft on "Swaranjit Singh (author)" something that if you look in their logs(link) they previously tried to create with their Surance account.
    Looking into this edit filter log by the Mardi1123 account, it says, among other things: "He has co-authored and co-edited these books with World-renowned Professor Nancy D. Erbe.".
    – 2804:F14:809E:DF01:307C:AF3C:87B6:EFA0 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sockpuppet case there too. GuardianH (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an observation, I only now noticed it: Surance had been trying to reach you in your talk page, by responding to 2023 conversations (diff1, diff2). – 2804:F1...B6:EFA0 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    De-archive as problems persist. GuardianH (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked Surance from editing Nancy D. Erbe. The editor is free to make edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be some copyright issues here, the first paragraph came back almost verbatim to an amazon book review, which begs the question are they copying us or is someone adding promotional information from already written sources? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mistaken page move

    NO ACTION
    (non-admin closure) Issue solved and OP instructed to bring similar future matters to a more appropriate venue like the Teahouse. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Can someone please fix my mistake [148]. I was/am attempting to move the page with first name Dario to the correct spelling of Dairo. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Done ✅ Thanks to @Whpq. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a heads up, this is the board for administrators to intervene against bad behaviour from editors, not a general place to get help. A better place to have posted this would have been WP:TEAHOUSE BrigadierG (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1214909310"