Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Liz (talk | contribs) at 07:05, 31 March 2024 (→‎Jolly73881 is WP:NOTHERE: Comment). 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]

    • Such suggestions should wait until NoonIcarus has had some time to respond, I think. We normally give users a while to answer.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 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]
    I agree with this, this may help lower the temperature without an excessive overreaction. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just remembering that this is an electoral year and there will be presidential elections in Venezuela. There will definitely be more traffic and more disputes. The 1RR general restriction should be helpful. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, NoonIcarus, you exaggerate and seem to inaccurately portray yourself as the "last one remaining" for Venezuelan political articles when this isn't the case ([5][6]). We can all be replaced and your depiction of yourself performing some sort of last stand (as you seem to do, arguing that this is an election year), is literally an example of a situation that validates evidence of battleground behavior. Number 57 themself has consistently assisted with the election article too, so it's untrue to suggest we don't have knowledgable users focused on the topic. You seem to be more concerned about someone with what you consider a bad POV participating in articles that you are interested in.
    An unofficial WP:0RR was already recommended and you reverted back to edit warring (and inaccurately removing information citing "failed verification"). Given the previous sanctions (you already had 0RR and 1RR restrictions placed upon you) and the multiple ignored warnings, we are well past the point of further reversion restrictions as you have already crossed over the brink. Multiple other users have outlined many examples of tendentious editing; I have showed how you are repeating behavior you were penalized for and that you delete pertinent cited additions of others (the "stable version" and "failed verification" methods), Boynamedsue and Mbinebri already discussed you disputing the reliability of apparently good sources and your "political activism" or "ideological rewriting" in articles, while Number 57, David Tornheim, Goldsztajn, Lavalizard101, Simonm223 and JML1148, have shared how you have consistently introduced undue material. After reviewing all of the above, it shows that on Latin American political topics, NoonIcarus, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. WMrapids (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already made your point, there's not need to repeat yourself. Don't bludgeon the process. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:32, 27 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 [7][8][9][10][11][12] and own removal of content[13][14][15][16] 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 ([17]), 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"[18]. 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: [19][20][21][22][23].
    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) [24] and Deprecated Telesur (RSP entry) [25], as well as Venezuelan state outlets. This was added to the article just months after these articles were published:[26]. Modifying the URL solves this issue.
    • See Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor for the CANVAS content. The provided links were broken, Web Archive [27][28] 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.[29] 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:[30][31][32]. 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]
    Response about POV --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll provide more information about the POV, since it is one of the two main topics at hand but I haven't provided a response, although I will collapse this.
    To describe my editing scope, in en.wiki I'm more interested in updating articles or current events, while in the es.wiki I'm more interested in created new content and starting articles, unless we're talking about translations into English or biographies for Women in Red. What I wouldn't want is that, given that writing about the current situation in Venezuela reflects negatively on the government, that automatically means having an anti-government POV, which in turns means having a pro-opposition POV. However, I want to leave clear that I am aware of my biases, as they're intrinsic to every person. I'm Venezuelan, which means that I have a different background and experiences from people from the Anglosphere, which is why I also understand the position of many of the participants here.
    To provide an overview, I was the first person to suggest an end date for the presidential crisis article. Since the Punto Fijo governments were brought up, though, as examples, in Spanish I have created the article about the 1969 Operación Canguro, the intervention of the Central University of Venezuela by President Rafael Caldera; the 1984 Tazón massacre, when National Guard soldiers shot at students from the same university; the 1986 Yumare massacre, during Jaime Lusinchi's government; the 1992 Retén de Catia massacre, during Carlos Andrés Pérez's second term; and the 1994 Sabaneta fire, the worst prison tragedy in Venezuelan history. I even created an article about a student from the University Simón Bolívar that was killed by the police in 1989, Gonzalo Jaurena, which at the end was ultimately deleted. At es.wiki I likewise used to patrol for vandalism in articles about government officials ([33][34][35][36][37] and trust me, there were plenty) until it became too time consuming.
    Given that we're discussing a general Latin American topic ban, it should also be useful to discuss other articles from the region. I have likewise edited about human right abuses by right-wing groups (or against left-wing followers) and I think it's important for them to be documented in Wikipedia: Argentina's Cecilia Cacabelos, disappeared during the last military dictatorship; Mexico's Halcones, responsible for the Corpus Christi Massacre during the Dirty War; the 1963 Dominican coup d'état, where leftist President Juan Bosch was deposed; Chile truckers' strike, supported by the CIA, and the 2017–2018 Honduran protests, after conservative Juan Orlando Hernández was declared elected among irregularities. In Spanish, I have also written about several cases about other countries in the Inter-American Commision of Human Rights: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
    I don't want to be defined by my worst moments or mistakes, or that the most recent editorial disputes. 2020, 2021, 2022 and early 2023 were relatively calm years overall. Regardless of the perceived POV, I'm knowledgable in general and I'm really looking forward improving articles. If there are issues in articles, including about neutrality (from human rights to corruption), it's something that can be discussed and I will probably have something to be able to help. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:55, 27 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[38]. 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 for NoonIcarus

    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]

    Responses to WMrapids
    • [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: [39][40][41][42] 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]
    Responses to David Tornheim
    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: [43],[44], and [45]. 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..." [46]
    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: [47][48][49]. 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 ([50] [51][52]) 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 ([53][54]) 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]
    @David Tornheim, your support of Grayzone, a deeply problematic media entity that has even gone after Wikipedia, is rather troubling here. Could you explain your position here? Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i do not wish to become involved in this thread even in the slightest but David supported the deprecation of Grayzone; evidently he does not support the site itself. sawyer * he/they * talk 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He supported "Option 1 or 2", which suggests we was in favor of keeping it as a source and furthermore says: "Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told." So I'm pretty sure he wasn't exactly supportive of the effort (unless I missed something somewhere else?) Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread the comment - trout Self-trout. Ignore me! sawyer * he/they * talk 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Tornheim: While we're at it, I also recall that one time, when discussing images for Nicolás Maduro's infobox, you described him as follows ([55]): The second image has none of those problems. He is evenly lighted and looks straight into the camera with a somewhat somber but friendly face ready to engage the reporter in an interview. He looks more humble and receptive., and Maduro consider[sic] himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo., while also commenting: This is problematic given that he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a "dictator" to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change.
    You have already mentioned your concern about possible disruptive editing by me, but I want to clarify if your POV concerns are because it can differ from yours. Could you provide more insight into these comments? --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:20, 28 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]
     Comment: Boynamedsue is involved in the dispute from this discussion: Talk:Guarimba#Tags --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responses to Boynamedsue
    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]
    NoonIcarus is well within his rights to enforce WP:VENRS, it is a Wikipedia standard policy and should not be characterized as "an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias." Frankly, I find that choice of characterization very concerning. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it is a Wikipedia standard policy. WP:VENRS is not a WP:POLICY. It is just an essay documenting the WikiProject Venezuela local consensus on those sources. That is useful, and I think the fix there if the list is wrong is to talk it out on the VENRS talk page and then update VENRS. But let's be careful of the terminology we use. VENRS is definitely not a Wikipedia policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Commented below. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:51, 28 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]
    Responses to JML1148
    • I assume you mean "POV-pushing" editing, because "blatant NPOV" editing would imply he was doing a blatantly good job. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:13, 24 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]
    Responses to NoonIcarus
    • 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"[56][57] or similar) and discounting human rights abuses performed by the "democratic" government ([58], [59], [60], [61]) 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]
    [62] ([63] and [64][65][66], see response above). --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a permanent ban is certainly not appropriate, and even a topic ban is marginal. This whole things seems to be a rather roundabout way of you saying you disagree with NoonIcarus about what constitutes NPOV. The best thing to do would be to talk about your differences with respect to what you think NPOV is on these articles in some section of WikiProject Venezuela and come to an NPOV consensus there. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:12, 24 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]
      I have a question here. Would it be a good idea to call in other editors of WikiProject Venezuela to get a second opinion on these charges. I'd like to get people who know a lot about the subject to comment, and I feel we're missing a significant portion of the community here who might know a lot about the topic, but at the same time, I don't want to accidentally WP:CANVAS. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Allan Nonymous: NoonIcarus did this in a former ANI and some saw that as inappropriate and borderline canvassing, so we should avoid doing this again. It is also better that we have users independent of the topic who can make their decision solely based on reviewing behavior and edits. WMrapids (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably nobody would answer, at any rate. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban I'm involved to the extent that I am a participant to an open AfD discussion initiated by VMRapids on an article created by NoonIcarus, 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 delegitimise 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]
    • Support topic ban, stonewalling, general combativeness, POV issues, etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • STRONGLY Oppose topic ban, while I personally agree that NoonIcarus seems to not have edited in the most consensus seeking way he could, it is clear that these are highly opinionated articles where the interpretation of sources is widely disputed. Hence, he seems to be following one interpretation, and WMrapids seems to be following another. As a result, I believe the best approach is for there to be a general discussion about the factual issues at hand and the sources somewhere to resolve this rather than using topic bans. --Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responses to Allan Nonymous
    The problem is the consistent rejection of sources which disagree with them, to the point where they edit with an inverted hierarchy of sources: Noonicarus specifically states that academic journals are inferior to Venezuelan news sources.
    They have also carefully curated a list of Venezuelan news (WP:VENRS) sources which excludes any source deemed to have pro-regime bias, but not sources containing pro-opposition bias, and frequently referred to it to support their arguments. They have shown no self-awareness or contrition here, no desire to change their editing style. Due to their prolific editing, they are, in effect, a one-user article-biasing machine.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true. Unreliable anti-government listed in WP:VENRS include but are not limited to El American, Factores de Poder and Periodista Digital. You can see an example of me disputing said sources while citing WP:VENRS at Pablo Kleinman, for instance: [67][68][69] At any rate, WP:VENRS currently prioritizes descriptions from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, accepting the community's wider consensus. You can likewise see me recommending academic sources here: Talk:Caracazo#Sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that's an issue take that up with WP:VENRS. He's within his rights to enforce a Wikipedia policy. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VENRS is not a wikipedia policy, it is an essay written largely by Noonicarus.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Well, in that case, an RfC concerning WP:VENRS might be a good idea. I think it would be greatly beneficial to get a consensus reliable sources list here given the issue. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allan Nonymous: Hi. WP:VENRS has had at least three RfCs (where some of the editors here have participated in), all started by WMrapids, of which the first two were withdrawn, in part due to the amount opened at the time and their broadness (RfC:WPVENRS, WP:RS/N#WP:VENRS and "Source description dispute"). I don't want to speak on behalf of other participants, but from what I gather the consensus was that it was better to discuss the reliability of the sources in a case to case basis, if there were any doubts, which is what happened with No consensus La Patilla (RSP entry). One of the points of contention was that I removed many state-owned sources from several articles and cited WP:VENRS as a justification, which is what Boynamedsue is probably referring to. I want to leave clear that I have never claimed that WP:VENRS should be applied as a policy, citing it instead as an example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (just as the list of sources that other WikiProjects have), and since it is clear this has been controversial, I have not done this again since December and don't intend that to do it again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NoonIcarus, Why did you ever think it appropriate to remove material and sources on the basis of an article which is clearly marked as opinion? TarnishedPathtalk 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath: I'm not sure if I follow. Do you mean WP:VENRS or the sources themselves?
    There were to main reasons for this. I mostly focused in references from the Bolivarian Communication and Information System state media conglomerate (but not limited to it; I also removed scores of references from EcuRed because its content is user generated, but I did open a thread at the RSN when there was opposition to it), including Venezolana de Televisión, whose comments can be found here: Talk:WP:VENRS#Bolivarian Communication and Information System, Talk:WP:VENRS#La Iguana. The first reason was WP:TELESUR's deprecation at RS/P, because Telesur is part of the conglomerate and other of its outlets routinely cite it for fact.
    The second reason are the sources individual histories with reliability, including Alba Ciudad [es] (discussion here: Talk:WP:VENRS#Alba Ciudad), besides the ones mentioned above. The sources lack editorial independence overall or fact checking.
    I did not remove the sources merely because they are state-controlled or pro-government, but because of the verifiability principles and of their reliability track record, or in other words, per WP:GUNREL. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Boynamedsue and Novem Linguae clarified that it was an essay from WikiProject Venezuela before I could. However, I'll link its talk page (Talk:WP:VENRS) and note that a rationale and a description are usually offered to justify the classifications, as it would happen in the RS noticeboard. The assesment is not capricious, and the description from WP:RS/P is always used first when available (which represents a wider community consensus). If anything, more people is invited to participate. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support tban as even the more "defensible" uses of failed Verification often seem a somewhat inappropriate and as it does seem like a pattern of POV pushing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responses to Simonm223
    • I think that NoonIcarus is largely editing in good faith here, and only about half (3/8, from sources cited as concerning by WMRapids) of his most troubling edits were deemed inappropriate. A warning and or 1RR for NoonIcarus seems more appropriate. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI. I engaged in a brief discussion with Allan Nonymous about the numerous posts at this WP:AN/I here (permalink) --David Tornheim (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding this here! Is there a way you make sure to include the whole page in your link, just in case things things change there in the future? Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that provides additional context which reinforces my support for the tban as the most appropriate remedy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban: I guess I can't say I'm an uninvolved editor, as WMRapids cites me as the first one to bring to attention NoonIcarus' dubious removal of sourced content and NoonIcarus and I had many past debates over my bias concerns. It's been my long-held observation that NoonIcarus has been rewriting articles like 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt to push an anti-government narrative using more subtle tactics like overweighting anti-government content/sources, using selective attribution to portray pro-government views as biased opinions (while anti-government views are portrayed as fact), as well as the at-issue tendency to challenge and remove ideologically-inconvenient sourcing and info on, to be generous, thin grounds. I'm not gonna lie though—it's been cleverly done and I burnt out trying to fight it, hence my lack of involvement in the current debates. I don't vote this way lightly, as NoonIcarus has always been cordial and willing to discuss things, and I certainly don't blame anyone for hating the Venezuelan government. But it seems I'm not the only one alarmed by NoonIcarus' ideological rewriting, and if it's spreading to articles across the entire topic of Latin American politics, I would say it's finally time to stop this. Mbinebri (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responses to Mbinebri
    • This is a really compelling argument for a TBAN, and frankly, I share your concerns here. I think it's clear that NoonIcarus should consider making changes to his editing strategy, especially given that this has been raised as an issue before. For now, at least, I still feel that a TBAN is going too far, but these concerns will need to be addressed one way or another. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You've made your vehement opposition to a tban very clear by now. But the thing is I remember run-ins with NoonIcarus under their prior handle going back years and it was, honestly, the exact same pattern. They should seriously consider finding some other area of the project to work on where they can operate more collaboratively and I doubt they will without some compulsion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, the arguments made here have, at least, reduced the intensity of my opposition here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mbinebri: This really chimes with me, Noonicarus is not here to annoy or troll anybody, and the origin of their bias is understandable. However, the volume of their edits and the lengths they go to in defending them means that very few users have the energy to confront them consistently. Overall this is leading to a bias problem spread throughout our Venezuelan politics articles.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that this describes WP:COMPETENCE more than disruptive editing. Still, I thank you for your comments. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you guys that the volume of the edits made and the aggressive reverts without seeking community consensus are a real concern. If anything this AN/I has taught me the importance of seeking consensus. NoonIcarus, is clearly falling short here often, and I feel a bit of understandable sympathy here (you should see the numbers I used to pull on old articles when I was younger, not my proudest work). At the same time, it is my opinion that NPOV is reached by taking the collective voices and perspectives of a wide variety of editors. My concern with a TBAN is, if NoonIcarus leaves, as a major contributor, could lead to a disproportionate under representation of his views among those who edit Venezuelan articles, leading to a worse WP:BALANCE overall, even if less edits are made disruptively by the remaining members. If there is evidence this will not be issue, I am more than willing to further reduce my opposition to a TBAN (as I have already done to some degree). This, I think cuts to the core of my concern here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allan Nonymous: I respect your sentiment and thought the same thing during my initial edits with NoonIcarus. They are fairly knowledgeable about such topics, but it depends on how you use such knowledge. It is important for us all to recognize that we are not irreplaceable and our misbehavior on the project does have consequences. I've sincerely tried many things to avoid conflict with NoonIcarus (including this recommendation, though it returned to edit warring), but as you can see from other users, NoonIcarus' editing behavior has been a repetitive problem. While NoonIcarus portrays themself as "the last one remaining", I have shown that WikiProject Venezuela members are still active and others in this discussion (including myself) have shared their own unsympathetic feelings towards the Venezuelan government ([70], [71]). So rest assured, such topics will be okay, and I'm glad that you are using this opportunity to reflect on your own editing as well. WMrapids (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Links to some of the own olive branches I have extended to WMrapids in the past:[72][73], and linking full last talk page exchange: User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mbinebri: While I naturally disagree with your topic ban support, I want to thank you for your comments about our exchanges being cordial. Stay safe. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I feel might be a good compromise? Article Ban on Latam Politics, with a possibility for review at some point. This allows NoonIcarus to participate in the topic through talk page discussions (i.e. to suggest changes in policy/flag sources he may find problematic) without disrupting the articles or leading to edit warring. This might allow NoonIcarus to participate, so long as he remains within consensus as other editors can take up his suggestions. If he shows signs of working well on talk pages, then he can be allowed back on the articles. So far, I have seen him work well in discussions. In addition to this, as a show of good faith, I would hope NoonIcarus would open an RfC with respect to WP:VENRS so that we could make it more clear which were good and bad sources,as well a more general policy with regards to academic versus media sources (in particular, we should be careful when the academic sources about current political events). This would help reduce a lot of future lack of clarity on vague sources and what sources we should be using which has been a major contributor to this. Let me know your thoughts on this people. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responses to Allan Nonymous' article ban suggestion
    @Allan Nonymous: Users can request to be unblocked on their own talk page. I might have seen custom restrictions before where administrators suggest against blocked users from making a block appeal for a certain period of time (For example: User banned from Latin American political topics: May appeal in one year), but not too sure on this. Wanted to make sure that you know that not all blocks have to be permanent. WMrapids (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware here, but my hope is that this will prevent another case of "this user gets TBAN unblocked after a year/two/three" and goes right back to what didn't work before. This sort of approach would might help him and other people find a way to productively work together, instead of just creating a cycle. That's my thought, at least. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why a topic ban is the right solution and your "compromise" won't work--the behavior extends to talk pages and the disruption would continue there. If NoonIcarus is going to learn proper editing behavior, they need to steer clear of politics.--David Tornheim (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is clear that the primary concern here are edits made to mainspace articles, and the vast majority of concerning edits are made there. I am disappointed to see that you seem to treating this as a punitive response given the general consensus that topic bans are not punitive. I am making an effort here to seek consensus, so I hope you are willing to do so as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misinterpretation of what has been said. Your continued response to every editor is verging on WP:IDHT and I would gently suggest your opinion has been heard and it would be wise to step back and allow a consensus to emerge. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little confused by your concerns of WP:IDHT here? I agree that at the beginning of this discussion, I responded to a lot of different editors (this is my first AN/I so I didn't fully understand the discussion protocol and I apologize for that) but this was a response with regards to a consensus seeking solution and is is to an editor I have engaged with multiple times, as part of a discussion largely regarding an effort to "step back and allow a consensus to emerge". If you could clarify a little more your concerns (maybe on a different page, as this may be off topic to the discussion), I would be more than happy to attempt to address them. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Effectively half of this discussion consists of you replying to every other post to argue your case. You've been cautioned about WP:BLUDGEON once already. You don't need to reply to every post here. Doing so will do nothing more than raise questions about why you are so passionately defending NoonIcarus. So you should really stop. Simonm223 (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize that at the beginning of this AN/I I replied over enthusiastically, this is my first AN/I so mistakes are bound to happen. At the same time, this section of the AN/I is mostly me asking WMrapids about my concerns about any action taken, and I was glad so see here that he mostly addressed those concerns. Hence I have significantly reduced my opposition to a TBAN. Furthermore, I did ask and still have actively raised serious concerns about NoonIcarus citing WP:VENRS which I have continued to raise and hope he can make a good faith effort to address. I, personally, don't feel my recent efforts fit very well into a case of WP:BLUDGEON or WP:IDHT, but I do appreciate your feedback here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Allan Nonymous, I have been watching this thread and your replies have been coming up in my notices a lot. You should listen to Simon. TarnishedPathtalk 10:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notifying @Allan Nonymous:, since it's their comment after all: do you agree that your comments in these responses to Mbinebri are collapsed? If so, do you have a preference if they are displayed this way or this way (the current one)? --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block for NoonIcarus

    • Support indef - per WMRapids’ opening statements and the statements of JML1148, Simonm223, User:Number 57 and others here. This is a clear WP:SPA account with numerous examples of bad faith editing, resulting in a previous one year editing restriction. Now this. Enough is enough, I’m calling for an indefinite block. Jusdafax (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TLDR

    Disclaimer: I personally am not an "involved party" in the case however, I have interacted with several of the editors in other cases. My position on the topic ban proposed is "STRONGLY oppose".

    This is an effort to provide a brief summary of the events leading up to and the part of the vast, wall-of-text dispute titled "NoonIcarus and 'Failed verification'" in an attempt to make it easier for other users whose eyes may glaze over at the sight of so many words, inspired by the suggestion of S Marshall.

    The dispute here starts with a complaint from WMrapids concerning NoonIcarus removing a variety of citations and associated text using the tag "failed verification". Of these, NoonIcarus is a confirmed Spanish speaker and member of Wikimedia Venezuela, WMrapids is a member of English Wikipedia's Peru project. This notable here as the articles the two seem to primarlily edit concern latin american history, mostly, Venezuela. After consulting with members of the Wikipedia discord concernin the best editing practices, it is clear that this is generally considered acceptable within the confines of Wikipedia. Furthermore, in articles for controversial topics, it is considered standard practice (better to say nothing than something controversial). However, it quickly became clear that issue involved was not merely the use of "failed verification" efforts but whether these efforts systematically contributed to a POV. Some of the edits appeared more than defensible, others were significantly more dubious and it may have been possible NoonIcarus was removing sources that were in fact verifiable. From there, debate escalated to a wider debate around whether NoonIcarus' editing approach was approrpiate for the topic, particular concerns were raised about edit warring. A possible mitigating factor was raised that, if WMrapids was making unsourced edits, these may have been partially justifiable. There was no general total community consensus about the veracity of the allegations, but it does seem that at least some of the edits were to actually verifiable content. After this, NoonIcarus was given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. [This is Part 1 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.] Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NoonIcarus provided a report responding to the allegations made. The report was not directly responded to, but discussions on the original complaint did continue afterwards. Soon after, WMrapids, immediately made a request for a topic ban on NoonIcarus concerning Latin American political articles. This was immediately good-faith rejected (and the request was later voluntarily withdrawn) on the grounds that a complaint filer cannot be the one to initiate such action. Another user made supported the request which was then considered the initial request. Tensions at this point were high. NoonIcarus' response to this topic ban attacked WMrapids, claiming the user was a toxic influence on the English language Wikipedia's Venezuela project, and that additionally, a series of aggressive rolling RfCs he had made against existing policies on articles was "exhausting and demoralizing" members of the Wikipedia Venezuela project, as part of an effort to support his agenda. WMrapids and some other involved editors countered these claims with claims he was selectively ignoring evidence that went counter to positions amenable to his own agenda. [This is Part 2 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.] Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: Just to mention that I'd be happy to answer any related questions. I don't want to cram this thread any further, but it could really benefit from clarification to non-involved editors, so they could be broken into sections or collapsed. WMrapids should be given the same courtesy as an involved user, as they probably and understandably will disagree with some of my replies. I'll provide an answer to the POV pushing accusations as a collapsed hatnote below my first response (added here). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved prior comment to correct section. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong place to put this, this is for discussion and summary, if you want to stake your position on the TBAN, post in that section. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I really need to stop using the mobile interface. I intended to post there. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we close this?

    Honestly I think this discussion has progressed as far as it is going to. I'd ask for an admin to review and determine appropriate consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I provided one last response regarding POV here. New participants can drop the last thoughts before closure. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Simonm223. Having those who have already commented continue to edit this thread and add more diffs and never-ending argument/counter-argument is tiresome for readers. I can suggest one admin who has already shown a willingness to review one of these lengthy discussions (about this topic) and make a final ruling. If another admin believes it is acceptable to ping them and ask for their help here, please advise.--David Tornheim (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It might be better, now that a request has been made (and given the fact that this is at the top of AN/I) for you not to ping admins, and for one to naturally come around and close this. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SEND TO ARBCOM. I am not surprised to see a citation tagging incident escalating to a show of blatant and shameless partisan participation at ANI while I have been on a mostly-break since early December when two of my closest friends died coincidentally on the same day, and I knew that I could not reasonably deal with serious grieving and WMRapids' editing at the same time. Editing around WMRapids since I first looked in to these recurring issues in Aug 2023 and found few admins or independent editors willing to engage (for example, zero feedback at NPOV noticeboard, and BLP noticeboard, and much more in other places) has required CONSTANT citation cleanup, correction of failed verification and flagging the use of non-reliable sources and much more, complicated by WMRapids' failure to engage collaboratively on talk, as documented in three full archives of one article only at least.

    When I engaged initially, I had hoped that the J. K. Rowling experience could repeat, via a combination of patience and demonstrating collaborative editing to yield good results, but that was not to be the case.

    When I had to also deal with serious real life loss and grief, I gave up and left Wikipedia almost entirely, because the situation has such a long history of diffs and behaviors and hounding and aspersions that have gone ignored at noticeboards, that it really belongs at ARBCOM where it can receive a dispassionate and non-partisan examination of long-standing behavioral issues and polite POV pushing, and I just have not been in an emotional place to be able to face the work required. There is plenty detailed in the talk archives of Operation Gideon (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5, Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6 and Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7) and plenty at WMRapids' user talk, (samples, [74] and [75]) but I see (again) few people taking the time to understand the full situation.

    I found this thread because I received an email ping this week from Tornheim here, on a page where Tornheim admits not reading the talk page, did not examine even the most recent edits, and the POV tag was clearly reinstated by WMRapids,[76] which is easily apparent in recent edits and detailed on talk. It is not surprising that anyone would give up in the environment I experienced in trying to edit around WMRapids, and simply tag their edits as failing verification, as they usually do, as seen in three archives on that talk page, because after months and months of dealing with similar editing behaviors, one tires of having to do all of the EXTENSIVE cleanup required from their style of editing. I am not yet ready to face situations like this again on Wikipedia, but I do have months worth of diffs showing recurring POV and failure to use and cite adequate sources (see the three pages of talk archives mentioned above, but there is much more and in more places). Should anyone take the time to send this situation to ArbCom where it belongs, I could eventually provide diffs including those showing why the community has not been able to deal with this, but I am now on an extended vacation visiting my children and have a long drive home next week. This thread is a fine example of using ANI to eliminate one editor with whom others disagree over something fairly minor in comparison to the other behaviors seen in several articles by other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I wanted to propose this, but I'm unfamiliar with the requirements to start a case there. It will definitely help handling such a complex issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When multiple users, who even state that they hold a similar POV to NoonIcarus (not being sympathetic to the government), say that there is a severe and consistent POV issue, that is not something "fairly minor."--WMrapids (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this needs escalating to Arbcom. I think there's detectable brigading going on in this AN/I and that's why no uninvolved sysop has stepped up to deal with it.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't agree with your "brigading" assessment as it appears that the majority of these users have not been involved with one another. Being transparent, David did mention to me on how to correctly present an ANI somewhere before possibly, but this ANI seems clearly appropriate given that NoonIcarus disingenuously applied the "failed verification" tag and removed material.
      That's not true, though. I've had editorial disputes with the majority of users that support a topic ban against me, which is understandable given how controversial the topic is. I haven't brought it up to not sidetrack the discussion, but I'd be happy to comment more about it if needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Striking since I misread. Apologies. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus do have a history of collaborating together for years, however, which makes it interesting that SandyGeorgia began editing again at the same time this ANI was opened and became involved after NoonIcarus contacted them in their talk page. Allan Nonymous' mention of discussing this ANI on Discord was something new to me, too.
      As for Arbcom, I'm open for whatever may aid with settling disputes, but there seems to be a solid consensus of users supporting a topic ban for NoonIcarus. MoneyTrees, who is a member of Arbcom, was involved earlier on in this discussion. Would it be appropriate to ping them and ask their opinion? WMrapids (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the reason this hasn't been closed is because you're right. There does seem to be a solid consensus. People qualified to close this might be a bit wary of it, though. I very much doubt if MoneyTrees would oppose an escalation to Arbcom in the circumstances, but if you'd like to ask them, you're welcome to do so. SandyGeorgia edits widely in controversial areas and it's not at all unusual for her edits to intersect with someone else's, but if you have concerns or suspicions about her, feel free to raise them at Arbcom when I open the case, or here now, or in any other appropriate place of you choice. Sandy won't be angry or defensive if you do, but she might be amused.
      To be quite frank, the only reason I didn't open an Arbcom case this morning is because Sandy wants to be involved and this isn't the best time for her. So I'm holding fire.—S Marshall T/C 14:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would appreciate feedback from at least one admin about whether they feel it necessary to escalate this incident to Arbcom before we just decide to supersede the obvious consensus here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't need an admin's consent to escalate to Arbcom, because Arbcom's where you go when uninvolved admins aren't stepping up to deak with the problem.—S Marshall T/C 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then I trust, when you've created this arbcom case, it will accurately reflect that the core subject is NoonIcarus' edit history and will notify all editors involved in the AN/I discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is one of the core subjects, yes, although I hope to persuade Arbcom to accept a case whose scope is Conduct in articles about the current politics and recent history of Venezuela. I certainly don't intend to make everyone who's posted here a party to the case, and it's not needful to notify non-parties. I'll notify parties to the case on their talk pages, and in the interests of transparency I'll also place notices here in this thread and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Butting in here; some three months ago, I was on the verge of taking these disputes to ARBCOM, because the conduct and content issues are inextricably linked, and there's experienced editors shielding disruptive editors on both "sides" of this dispute. I desisted largely because I wouldn't be able to participate in the evidence phase of such a case. It's been increasingly clear to me that that was a mistake, and I was waiting for the expected non-resolution of this thread - despite the numerous NPOV violations documented from multiple parties - to file a case. If nobody else does so, I intend to do so soon. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've been caught up in some of the side discussions in this areas with multiple RFCs, or attempted RFCs, happening at RSN, and have thought that it might all end up at Arbcom. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      S Marshall thank you for that consideration, but frankly, there will be no optimal time for me. The vacation has somewhat helped me regain my bearings post-grief, but when I return home, I am scheduled for hand surgery for a pre-cancerous growth that needs to be excised, so I don't know what typing ability I will have. Growin' old ain't for sissies, but we all know the arbs are heaving a huge sigh of relief to hear that my typing might be affected, and my typical verbosity might be curtailed, but I will have timing issues regardless. The reasoning for opening the case is well summarized to the one sentence in this thread by Moneytrees; finding the extreme list of previous dispute resolution will be more time consuming, and unfortunately I have most of that back at home. The behaviors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard should also be within the scope of the conduct, and one can easily see in all of those threads who the other parties are.
      Dustfreeworld, thank you for the concern (I haven't actually read the majority of my talk page yet-- as I said, I came to this thread by looking in to an email ping from Tornheim when I was settled in at my son's house and able to review my email), but in the interest of length, the new casting of aspersions and failure to assume good faith re when or why I returned to editing are better explored with the facts and diffs in the arbcase, as they demonstrate a pattern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ♥ --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @S Marshall: I'll trust your judgement on this then, though I do want to get the opinion @Moneytrees: as well. I've always advocated for more involvement in these disputes, so the more the merrier in this case. I'm just glad that these issues are getting some attention. Thanks for guiding us through this. WMrapids (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi there, as an uninvolved editor, may I ask what’s the problem with a user (Noonlcarus) replying to my message expressing WP:Wikilove to a WP:Missing Wikipedian? Sandy already said that she had lost two close friends recently in the same day. May I also draw your attention to WP:Kindness campaign and WP:Editor retention as well? Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There's nothing wrong with this, but the timing is curious to post something to a talk page which will be usually emailed. I don't know Sandy's personal background, so of course condolences to them, but I am more concerned about NoonIcarus' gamey behavior due to their history of unconventional canvassing. WMrapids (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did email her months before all of this happened, because it's not the first time and she mentions she has gone through a difficult time. I found the WikiLove after looking for diffs to add to this case, and I'll remind that this is not the first time that you accuse me of canvassing for questionable reasons (Talk:WP:VENRS#RfC: VENRS, hence why the aspersions casting is also an important issue in all of this). I'll ask you again to not throw stone in a glass house after your own potential canvassing in previous and related move discussions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @WMrapids. Thank you for the reply. I know nothing about your/Noonlcarus’s background either. I don’t know what do you mean by “usually emailed”. If user’s talk page can’t be used to express WP:Wikilove, what is it used for? Used for arguing or assuming bad faith? At least 10 users have replied to that post of mine with messages such as “stay safe” already. What does that mean?
      1. It’s not “usually emailed” as you said. 2. Sandy is a well-respected and much-loved user.
      Aside, just curious, have you ever sent any Wikilove to other users on their talk page? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just for the record, I'll link once again the Wikilove I left for WMrapids in Christmas: User talk:WMrapids#Season's greetings. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Dustfreeworld, just an FYI ... because of my dislike of the pingie-thingie, I have my preferences set so that I see pings only via email; that way, they don't disrupt my concentration when I'm in the midst of complex edits. For most of late December, and until early March, I wasn't up to even checking my email. I did see the Tornheim ping via email because it was the most recent when checking in after I arrived at my son's house for Holy Week, and I was finally feeling ready to see if the Venezuelan editing situation had improved during my absence. As this situation has long needed to go to ArbCom, now seemed to be the time to say so. I'm sorry I won't be able to help out at my typical rate for medical content for at least the near future; after a long absence, catching up can be daunting, and I'm not sure I'm ready, as I also see J. K. Rowling descending into non-collaborative editing, which is discouraging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sandy, no worries, RL is more important. I hope things will get better soon. People like you,[77] so please, be well and take good care of yourself. ♥ --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC); edited 02:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Seeing no retraction from WMrapids of his false charge after several days, my response is on his talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @SandyGeorgia: I know you have a lot going on, but I have to respectively ask since you have become involved; why haven’t you commented on NoonIcarus' behavior (either in support or opposition) and have instead focused on users who have had to deal with their POV editing?

    Now, I also have to respond to your accusations about my citing and copying within Wikipedia. Regarding the citations, your "sample" is from about 6 months ago when I first was getting involved in controversial articles (I now know about exceptional claims needing exceptional sources, etc.) and we discussed above how I could be more specific when creating citations. Understandable. As for attribution, I have already discussed this with a patroller and they said my edits have improved. In a recent edit, I even made sure to attribute when it was my own original edit.

    So while you have tried to make the point that I am some sort of troublesome user, there is direct evidence that I have responded to the feedback and have improved my editing. This isn't the case for NoonIcarus, however, so that is why I have to ask, Sandy, why have you decided not to comment on their misbehavior? Why haven't you discussed on how they are removing information while making false "failed verification" edit summary claims? Again, my sincerest condolences for all that you’re going through, but this is something that needs to be discussed as well.--WMrapids (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tornheim pinged me to an immediate question for which the answer is obvious, and that is what brought me to this ANI. You reinstated a POV tag that had been resolved, as you re-added UNDUE material that had been many times discussed, without engaging talk,[78] and that is the (immediate) pattern of editing behavior I've observed over the long haul, which hasn't improved. You take long absences, then don't engage talk at all or ignore requests and questions, and then come in to edit as you please regardless of what has been discussed on talk, sometimes having found sub-standard sourcing or sources that either don't verify content or conflict with higher quality sources, (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources) and then leave the citations and other cleanup to others until the next lather-rinse-repeat cycle, and don't appear at times to have read or digested what is written on the page (eg the most recent aspersion in this thread). And you can be extremely polite when under a microscope of scrutiny, but less so with the constant casting of aspersions in talk discussions, which derails productive discussion.
    As to whether your editing has improved, I haven't had time to check for good faith engagement on talk, but I see the same casting of aspersions as always in this very thread; you seek out obscure journal sources to back your POV (aka cherrypicking via apparently google searching on terms eg Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources rather than relying on a preponderance of higher quality sources); you leave the burden of discussion on others while the content you edit war in stands for months as others won't edit-war it out again; and the finger-pointing and the aspersions are persistent (see above), as is the tendency to not see that you do everything (and more) that you accuse NoonIcarus of doing.
    Beyond the immediate instance that brought me here, I haven't taken time to look at anyone's recent editing, because a) I am visiting my son, b) all of these matters should be examined before ArbCom, not here, c) the issues with NoonIcarus in this instance are already beaten to death, and d) discussions with you (as with me) tend towards verbosity that will simply exhaust other readers. I am well aware that at times NoonIcarus's editing is also sub-par in several ways, but he has a full command of the sources, context and history, and a full and fair airing of a complex situation is unlikely with an ANI pile-on. The aim of my posts here is only as is appropriate to outline why an Arbcase is called for and context for the immediate issue here (failed verification tags as cleaning up after your edits can be exhausting and it is difficult to get you to engage talk). And I note that, unlike you, NoonIcarus is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to his command of English and being able to explain himself (eg, the misunderstanding about his objection to how some scholarly sources are frequently misused in Venezuelan content, and he is not the only editor to have noticed that). There is no need to fill up this ANI with further analysis of NoonIcarus's editing; what was not represented here at all was both sides of a complex situation in which users with less command of the sources frequently show up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at Arbcom

    Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Venezuelan_politics.—S Marshall T/C 10:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Please do not close this thread while ArbCom is considering whether to open a case. If ArbCom accepts the case, they will of course have the final say about NoonIcarus. If ArbCom declines the case, the community should take action, so that dummy edits will be useful to prevent this thread from being archived without action. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A good faith arbitration request has been converted (thus far) to a referendum on ANI and noticeboard functioning, which unfortunately distracts from an already complex case, and adds to the TLDR aspect by further making it near impossible to respond on the arb pages while staying within the 500-word limit.
      The acknowledgement and statement on the arb request page of not wanting to even read this thread leaves three separate things that now need to be responded to, and that can't be done in 500 words: 1) answering BK49's query about why an arbcase is needed at all (which in optimal cases is all we would be entering with our 500 words on the arb page); 2) remedies or sanctions that may help short of a full arb case (since that has been suggested now) and I agree with Number57 about the negative effect that general sanctions will have on Venezuelan content if the underlying behaviors of both parties aren't addressed with warnings issued at least so that we can proceed rapidly to AE should they continue; and 3) the entirely separate matter of word limits at ANI. It's very disappointing to see the word-limit issue take over the case request (most responses are to that, with underlying issues not addressed), and it might have been better to raise that outside of the case page where the broader community could hold a full discussion, as there is much more than TLDR affecting the protracted dispute, even short posts get no feedback from admins, and a full discussion of that proposal, or alternate solutions, isn't feasible under a 500-word-limit scenario.
      I have yet to enter a declaration or full evidence here at ANI as my intent was to do that instead at an arbcase in the evidence phase, as this ANI thread became a pile-on where some of the (much more serious than failed verification tagging) evidence presented wasn't apparently even read or considered. I submit that pattern is likely to continue even if the TLDR is contained, as Wikipedia participation in Venezuelan content is lopsided and requires knowledge beyond the typical, including of Spanish. I am unsure where or whether to enter evidence and diffs here (where they won't be read), or there, or some combination of both; if arbs don't want to bother with complex cases, then letting Venezuelan content go the path described by Number 57 of Israel/Palestine is perhaps the most logical response, and I will not waste my time further. I await advice on how to proceed; if I am to enter evidence here, ANI needs to examine behaviors and issues more serious than those attributed to NoonIcarus, with some of the most serious affecting living persons. It would be detrimental to content to close this page thread by sanctioning only one party in a two-party-plus-brigade problem, while an arbcase is sidetracked to a separate issue of how to improve noticeboard functioning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, claims of brigading keep being made but no evidence has been presented of it. Simonm223 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people believe WMrapids also requires sanctions, why not just start a proposal for them here? I'm just not seeing the arguments for pre-empting the discussion of NoonIcarus' behavior above when it's so completely one-sided to the point of approaching a WP:SNOW close. If there are actually-solid reasons to think that it's been canvassed, the closer can take that into account, but right now it is so lopsided that it's hard to see how it could make a difference; the people doing the canvassing might get sanctions but it's not going to change the result. If people believe NoonIcarus shouldn't be topic-banned based on the merits, they need to actually say as much rather than just make procedural arguments. If only a single person is willing to defend their behavior on the merits then I think that it's clear it's going to happen no matter how this is resolved, and that dragging things to ArbCom just to get the same inevitable result is a waste of time. If people think that WMrapid should also be topic-banned or otherwise sanctioned, they should at least attempt to make that case to the community and gauge consensus on it before rushing to ArbCom; but right now it feels like people are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Some bludgeoning and allegations of canvassing aren't enough to take something to ArbCom while the outcome is so one-sided, since that means the community is handling this. --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When I referred it to Arbcom, it had been open for more than two weeks because the community wasn't handling it. All this has been raised several times before and got archived without closure. This time I used {{dnau}} to prevent that happening again, and it just got ignored and soon floated to the top of AN/I with all the involved people replying to each other, hugely multiplying the amount of reading required. The disputes are so sprawling and unstructured and smeared across so many pages that it isn't attracting experienced, uninvolved editors to do the reading and the thinking. Please bear in mind that I've largely sided with WMrapids on the specific issue that started this; my intention by referring to Arbcom was to get it moving, not to stop it in its tracks.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 30 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, Hydrangeans, 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."[79] 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:Hydrangeans], 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[80] (apart from [Hydrangeans] 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[81][82] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[83]. 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]

    I'm striking my support for this topic ban (you can call me neutral I guess) though I still support the one for Thmazing below. Jessintime (talk) 23:48, 21 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. Hydrangeans (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 [84] 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 [Hydrangeans] 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[85][86][87][88][89], 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.[90] (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. ...      ) [91][92] (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.[93] 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]
    • Support If you aren't allowed to be neutral on this topic per terms of employment, you shouldn't be able to edit. Wikipedia has a lot of stuff not related to this to edit. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:08, 14 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[94] 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]
    Note that they were first cautioned about this back in 2016 [95] and yet the issue there "main concern is breach of our terms of use and COI" is the same issue here because they did not heed the caution. At some points Helps must have wondered why dozens of editors she didn't know were raising issues with her edits and why the people defending her were almost all people she knew personally. She's not a stupid person, she pretty clearly knew that what she was doing wasn't kosher from at least 2016 onwards. She continued to do it anyway. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 25 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[96]. 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]
          • @Pigsonthewing: - you defended Rachel indicating that she disclosed COI on the (BYU) account. But, she admitted undisclosed COI on the other, personal account. The same person is behind both accounts, so I am afraid she didn’t handle COI properly. starship.paint (RUN) 00:06, 16 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[97]. 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]
      Using a term like “cult-like” is prolly not helpful here. A lack of academic freedom regarding theologically sensitive topics is pretty normal for unambiguously sectarian universities. If Al-Azhar University had a WiR, how do you think that would go down?
      RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:27, 27 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:
      • [103] 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. [104] 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: [105]. 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.[106] 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,[107] 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)[108], 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.[109] As can be seen in that link, the sources you removed[110] were not the versions of the sources I originally added,[111] 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.[112] 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 [113] (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]
    • Conditionally support a time-limited topic ban 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 [114] 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 had been seriously considering striking my vote for several potential reasons including RH’s cooperativeness, the issue of proportionality, and the fact that this could set a dangerous precedent based on certain statements by a few of the most aggressive supporters. However, given 1) the apparent interactions between Rachel Helps (wearing whichever hat) and other AML-related persons of interest and 2) the apparent inability on the part of the quality-control system to effectively handle the volume of contestable changes being made by the BYU group (which is by no means the latter’s fault per se, but there is still much room for improvement).
      At the same time, I am not completely convinced that a community-imposed topic ban is the best solution and I am interested in seeing more discussion. And possibly a “no consensus for now” close that allows RH and the BYU group time to further improve their practices, because I do believe there is a possible overlap between the desire of LDS scholars and The Encyclopedia as a whole in terms of documenting LDS topics more completely. And it does sound like a lot of the LDS content had been start-class poorly sourced and OR type stuff from novice editors, the same sort of stuff that you often see in Indian local articles and Judaism articles.
      However, I think the proposal about Thmazing is ripe for a close. The community, including yours truly, has a dim opinion of the behaviors that he’s engaged in, amply. And while I’m concerned about the AML situation I would like to see more evidence of any systematic collusion.
      RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:08, 26 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]
    • At this point I'm happy to comply, the difference between the TOS and the guideline seems like a hill I don't feel like dying on right now. Just tell me how you want me to do it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sincerely glad to hear it. Best practices, even if not required, is a good thing for someone who is a WiR and in education to try to follow. You and your students can disclose at article talk by adding the {{Connected contributor|User1=username}} template into the headers. The first person to edit a particular article can create the banner and put their own username as User1, and others who follow along can just insert |User2=, etc. There's documentation for other parameters at Template:Connected_contributor, but really I'm satisfied with a simple list of COI contributors.
      If you'll agree to make that routine going forward for all edits to articles related to BYU/LDS by you and your students, broadly construed, I'll strike my support for a tban. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valereee This seems reasonable. I'm curious what the threshold would be for adding the template. I ask because I've often seen Rachel reverting vandalism or other unhelpful edits or just fixing a source here and there. A quick look at her contributions shows that there are over 900 articles where she's made only 1 or 2 edits. It should be possible to find the intersection of her edits with articles within the LDS wikiproject, but I would expect the list of articles to be at least several hundred long. Should there be some threshold for what constitutes a substantive edit, or would you prefer having her place the template even for minor edits? Or would a more narrow range of articles be reasonable, like articles specifically related to the BYU, LDS Church, BYU people, etc.? ~Awilley (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Awilley, just off the top of my head: any edit that could reasonably be marked as minor -- typo fixes, grammar fixes, expanding or combining or renaming a reference -- doesn't need a COI tag. If there's content work, and it's related to BYU/LDS, tag it. Willing to be persuaded that this isn't the appropriate threshold, though! I wouldn't want to have to tag an article talk every time I edited something for the first time, that would double the work on many minor edits and maybe discourage me from making them. I don't want this to be onerous, as I do value the contributions these folks are making, and I appreciate BYU's willingness to fund a WiR to provide access to its records. Valereee (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valereee, why not make it required? What harm would that do? It seems rather bizarre to make it a condition when it's not a requirement, especially for so qualified an editor as Rachel, who is a huge asset here. (We aren't making it a condition for other COI editors, many of whom have dubious motives, making the difference in treatment even more bizarre.) The solution is to make it required for all COI editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valjean: - To make this a "requirement" rather than currently what it is as a "best practice," would require community consensus. No one person can make it a requirement. Someone would have to initiate an RFC. And there is probably good reason for this not be a requirement as deemed by the community. For me, the reason for "strongly discouraged" (or whatever) is probably to cover most of the circumstances, with some flexibility, in contrast to overbearing rigidity. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As said in the opening of The Warriors (film): Can you dig it? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Steve. I understand and largely agree about the proper procedure. What considerations might there be against making it a requirement? What harm would it do? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe I indicated the potential harm. With the wording as it is, there is some flexibility rather than strong rigidity. The community seems to operate best with flexibility. In any case, this is veering off topic in this forum. You might want to open a discussion about this elsewhere. Maybe the Village Pump or the COI talk page or wherever else? Also, anyone feel free to hat this part of this ANI. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valjean, because we'll never get buy in from other WiRs. Unfortunately it's just that simple.
      The thing is, it doesn't need to be required in order for it to be best practices, and when multiple other editors are requesting you to do something that isn't strictly required in policy and only costs you three seconds of time, why would you not want to comply with those requests? Valereee (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure where to respond here, but yes, I'm happy to comply and talk to other WiRs about best practices. I just told my students that we're going to include talk page connected contributor banners from today, and it will probably take a few days for everyone to start using them (one of my students is only working on Fridays this semester). I can do the pages we've worked on in the past--does anyone know if there is a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category? Or I can dedicate a few minutes each day working on it over the summer. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category
      You could try a WP:BOTREQUEST. Paradoctor (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      AWB is also an option where you can make semiautomated edits to pages based on an intersection of categories. Like pages in the LDS Wikiproject that you have edited. Ping me on me talk page if you want help. ~Awilley (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Vanamonde93. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Vanamonde93 and Awilley Springee (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, broadly construed.While it's true that her userpage is a whole heap of disclosure, the real problem is her (undisclosed) willingness to encourage other's undisclosed COI. Per Fram and Levivich: in Effect. ——Serial Number 54129 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the reasoning of Levivich - which I find particularly alarming due to the walled-garden character of a lot of BYU articles. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose per Vanamode93. Even if the COI stuff is properly resolved, or Rachel Phelps is topic-banned, we still have a massive number of LDS topics with no critical sources. This does not necessarily mean that the articles will improve. As a religious editor myself, it can sometimes take me up to an hour to find a non-fringe scholarly source to support whatever perspective I want represented. This is frustrating, but I do not try to bend the rules if I cannot find a reliable source mainstream enough to support a pro-religious perspective. See WP:NOTTRUTH for more information. However, I am opposed to a topic-ban because in my experience, student editors tend to do such a terrible job following policy, that I cannot support a topic-ban without us at least doing something about the WikiEd program as a whole. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose it's possible that some of the student employees being paid by the BYU Library to edit Wikipedia are also involved in WikiEd somehow through their regular classes, but this is the first time I've seen someone bring up WikiEd as a problem here. Scorpions1325, since it's important enough to inform your vote, could you explain what the connection is? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Forgive me. I misspoke. I am saying that it is not wise to let people employed at universities or anywhere else edit here for pay if they are not well-versed on policy, which is the case of BYU's students. At WP:AFC I found myself removing WP:PRIMARY and non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources every day. Paid editors, disclosed or not, tend to cause time-consuming work. Being a Wikipedia editor is something that requires commitment. Sometimes, learning the ropes can take months. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've read this over four times and no matter how I look at it, you seem to be arguing in favor of restrictions (or rather, that it would be "not wise" to oppose restrictions in this specific paid editor situation, where we agree that there are problems). But maybe that's just a sign that I should have shut up an hour ago and left this for the closer. Which I'll do now, with apologies for dragging this on longer. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a yes, but only if situation. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose at the present time. Having taken the time to read through the majority of this and the previous thread, my impression, bluntly speaking, is that the complained of behaviours are a tempest in a teapot. There are things I would see RH change in her approach (most of which I see a willingness from her to change, even if some of those concessions have come grudingly). But the proposed sanction is grossly out of proportion withth the conduct, as well as any demonstrable indication of bad faith conduct or IDHT/ineptitude.
      Futher, I'm concerned about the lack of firm nexus between any problem behaviour (to the extent it really is a problem) and the breadth of the subject matter covered by the proposed TBAN, as well as the fact that all of this is taking place in the context of the larger cluster of community discussions relating to BYU, which has often produced overzealous reactions that seem at least partially predicated on the presumption that our wiki colleagues employed by educational insitutions associated with religious traditions should be shown an extra layer of skepticism towards their neutrality, as a matter of course. Of course I can't know with any certainty which (if any) of those community members expressing concerns at RH's behaviour are analyzing her actions under this lens, but having looked at the facts myself, I don't see nearly enough to support such an aggresive sanction against an editor who is generally agreed to be productive and collaborative.
      At the same time, I'm not deaf the appeals that COI restraints are meant to be applied proactively, and there are moments where Rachel's comments drift towards a laisez-faire attitude for these rules, which is potentially very problematic for someone supervising other paid (and presumably often wiki-inexperienced) editors. So I would urge her to adopt a more active, deferential, and "better safe than sorry" disposition to these principlies, as I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would quickly flip their !vote if there continue to be issues here. But at the moment, I'm completely disinclined to the support the proposed TBAN on the specific behaviour and evidence raised here. SnowRise let's rap 22:17, 30 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]
      What exactly do you mean by by extension, Mormonism itself? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:21, 28 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]
      • The draft you link to is problematic, but I don't see how it relates to the AML. Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, I had taken for granted that the subject was an LSD member. I've strikken the side comment, which is btw telling of this user's way of editing. --Cavarrone 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • If anything that speaks to a broader issue, perhaps include a ban on article creation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support maybe they will miraculously recover from the unfortunate illness which prevents their typing, but hopefully they take their "breathing" time to learn how to not (Personal attack removed). In this particular case, however, Thmazing's obstructionist behaviour annoyed me enough to begin investigating in the first place, so perhaps we should thank him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @AirshipJungleman29: I've removed the personal attack. Please remain civil when describing behaviour from other editors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Femke: That's bollocks, mate colleague. We had our own page called that very thing which still directs to a page on meta. So AsJm29 should have called Thamazing a jerk, I guess. ——Serial Number 54129 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And there is a reason the meta page is no longer has that title. More people considered this a personal attack. Neither words are conducive to resolving issues of COI editing and civility on Thmazing's part. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the above comments. Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but per Levivich, would easily support more, as this is ridiculously lenient. Grandpallama (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the past president of Association of Mormon Letters shouldn't be editing articles about that group, but I'd like to have all such conflicted editors able to make suggestions and {{edit COI}} requests on the talk page. With niche subjects in particular, we need to balance our need for an accurate article against our desire to have the independent editors making the decisions about what to include. It's not ultimately helpful to the main goal if we TBAN anyone who actually knows anything about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If they are the only people who know the things about a subject, that subject may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage. It may have not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and may not be suitable encyclopedic matter. —Alalch E. 23:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support lack of candor and accountability, repeatedly citing their own off-wiki blog posts, even this topic ban is too lenient, it should be a topic ban from Mormonism at least. starship.paint (RUN) 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the topic ban described above per all the comments about COI and lack of candor. I also support a broader ban to include all LDS/Mormon topics per Starship.paint. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the subject obviously has skin in the game regarding AML and they fail to adhere to COI policy. I agree that the ban should include all LDS/Mormon topics. They do not understand how to edit according to policies and guidelines. Also, I am looking for evidence that they actually cited content in articles with their own blogposts. If this is true then that is totally unacceptable as one of the primary no-no's on Wikipedia. Anyone have any diffs about them citing article content with their blog posts? I read about it in the linked conversation but was unable to discern on which article(s) this happened. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 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]
    @Thmazing: No it isn't. I did look at your entire editing history and checked a whole bunch of it as I work on article reviewing, before I commented here. I read the discussion prior to this as well. The comment is probably is a bit harsh but you made the concious choice to ignore policy and your response hasn't been particularly positive. I work up at conflict of interest board also and I see the same kind of response by coi editors every time. I am sick to death of it dude. I want you to experience a moment of catharsis and undergo an epiphany, improve and stop breaking WP:COI and particularly WP:NPOV. I only state this because of your previous work. scope_creepTalk 08:57, 25 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". [115] 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]
    The post at…that place makes some easily verifiable claims. Other sources indicate you wholly own Peculiar Pages and have a senior position at Irreantum, so the claim that no money explicitly changed hands is not only irrelevant, but indicative of the reasons why editors (including myself) think a topic ban might be helpful to the project.
    Like, unilaterally removing a notability tag with the diff summary you did? Going about it that way is horribly disruptive to processes and doing so with a CoI is unconscionable to anyone engaged in the NPP or deletion processes (as I am).
    And by the way, unlike Nihonjoe you by definition can’t be outed, at least not while you have links to your public-facing socials and your personal website on your website. That’s not outing, it’s muckraking. If you want to claim any sort of protection for your identity, blank your user page.
    Frankly, if I had a mop I’d have given you a 24-hour block for the particular flavor of calculated incivility you’ve shown multiple editors on your user talk.
    Through your repeatedly telling people things to the general effect of "I am not a crook! Was it because of [insert personal attack] that you thought so?" when you know as well as they and now we do what the diffs say, you’ve turned a not that big complaint into something that a pseudonymous WikiHater thought was worth posting about.
    In fact, it should have been dealt with sooner. An admin should come along and close this because the more people vote !support, the more I get unpleasant feelings related to having just reread To Kill a Mockingbird
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:37, 22 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 [116] within the Elias: An Epic of the Ages. One month after that you declared that it was your blog [117]. 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]
      @Thmazing: - you've asked for a bit of WP:AGF, I assure you that's exactly what I have given to you. I've never called you a sly ne'er-do-well, neither have I said that you have a goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia. I simply think that you do not know (yet) if you should, or should not, add certain information to an article, per WP:DUE and WP:SPS, which you should thoroughly review. That is evident from your response: 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. starship.paint (RUN) 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for disruption and ignoring NPOV. If Thmazing thinks Fram's comment is unclear[118] 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]
    • Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed: Thmazing says that their COI editing is a very low percentage of their Wikipedia edits — 0.15%, according to their completely made-up estimate. If that's the case, and it's not a big deal to avoid all the pages where COI is likely, then a topic ban should be easy to comply with. In general, I'm unimpressed with Thmazing's statements — if they're still calling the COI concerns "absurd" after all this conversation, then they're not getting the point. If they really want to avoid a topic ban, being less defensive and dismissive would help. Toughpigs (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The conversation with Fram (linked above by Novo Tape) shows that Thmazing prefers deflecting away from the issue of declaring COI by essentially verbally assaulting Fram. (Redacted) Being snarky doesn't work. (Redacted) One more thing, this is not social website where we host links from personal blogs or links from other trivial venues. Thmazing, try doing some reading to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I suggest you start with reading WP:N and then follow the links from there. But, candidly, I don't see that as happening. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed: Note that this is an ongoing issue, Thmazing continues to join in discussions without disclosing relevant conflicts of interest [119] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support broadly construed. Not merely the absolutely blatant COI, but their refusal to acknowledge it, let alone address it, means that the community must do it for them. They chose... poorly. ——Serial Number 54129 18:59, 25 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 [120] 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 [Hydrangeans] 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 [Hydrangeans], 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. Hydrangeans (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 [Hydrangeans] 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[121]. 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[122] (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[123]. 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[124], 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]
    No actually, I was following you; I believe you had said something on Jimmy Wales' talk page (EDIT: yes, it was this thread which I participated in) and I absent-mindedly had a look at your recent contributions. Couple of days later I was having a look at WPO (I believe for the Nihonjoe saga), saw that thread, and thought "huh". Used what I could of that thread when opening the VPM subsection after being irritated by Thmazing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 24 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]
    Fram: I'm not trying to claim or insinuate anything. I became interested in the possibility of off-wiki collaboration when I was singled out by the "joe job" sock, so I did some digging and then posted the above. I don't find fault in any of your actions that you described above, and I really wouldn't care even if you had learned about Nihonjoe and the other editors on the other site. How you find the information matters much less than what you do with it. You'll have to forgive me for not being immediately familiar with all the facts. When I first commented on the Village Pump thread this month I didn't realize there was an Arbcom case afoot and Nihonjoe wasn't even on my radar, so I've been kind of piecing things together since then. ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once you look at the timeline of things, you can see that this didn't start with WPO, WPO only confirmed what people had already been saying on-wiki for years. To recap:
    • the now-familiar 2020 COIN
    • 2022 ANI started by Rachel Helps against HEB, where she writes "I have invited Horse Eye's Back to bring their concerns to COIN. I would prefer that to the constant accusations that I should not be editing certain pages." This is ironic in hindsight, as these concerns had already been brought to COIN two years earlier. AFAICS, nobody in the 2022 ANI thread mentioned the 2020 COIN. The only person in the 2022 ANI discussion who was also in the 2020 COIN is... Rachel Helps. I find it not very honest of her to say "take it to COIN" without disclosing that this had already been done. BTW, who jumps in to defend Rachel in the 2022 ANI? Awilley.
    • January 2024 ANI against HEB (for things including but not limited to the BYU/AML COI), in which Rachel Helps writes "HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon..." (this is the one mentioned above where [Hydrangeans] pinged Awilley to the discussion) Dozens of editors participated here.
      BTW just to toot my own horn here, I said there and then, on Jan 8, that "It seems wildly obvious that 'something is afoot,' and I don't think it's limited to this thread..." That there was widespread undisclosed COI editing was obvious by Jan 8. Subsequent disclosers have since validated my suspicions.
    • The "Let's talk about LDS editors" WPO forum thread was started Jan 18. After all of the above.
    • The WPO blogs were posted in Feb and March (neither one about Rachel Helps, but related)
    The timeline refutes any suggestion that WPO is what brought attention to this matter. Rather, WPO laid bare the evidence that supported what was already being discussed on-wiki. We know from people's statements that editors submitted evidence to Arbcom privately in December and January. Wikipedia didn't follow WPO, WPO followed Wikipedia. People weren't canvassed from WPO to Wikipedia, it was the other way around. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty damn sure that the reason WPO wrote about it was because nothing was done on-wiki. Which happens pretty regularly: if Wikipedia doesn't take care of its own problems on-wiki, the rest of the world will notice and call Wikipedia out for it whenever the problems are serious enough for the rest of the world to care. Spreading misinformation in Mormonism, the Holocaust, Israel/Palestine, Iran, etc. are examples of things the real world will care about. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the extensive ongoing issues and the lack of recalcitrance maybe we need to start talking about sanctions for Awilley. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the timeline, Levivich. That is very helpful. I remember that 2022 ANI...I think that's why I kept getting pinged back to subsequent threads on the same issue. ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so when you're in a hole, stop digging. This isn't McCarthyism, which you literally linked to. starship.paint (RUN) 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus this is a mess,
    does anyone want me to contact an admin Maestrofin (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maestrofin: The admins are most likely fully aware. This forum is entitled "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think we should have an Request For Comment Maestrofin (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Several admins have participated in this thread, including Awilley above. An RfC might be needed subsequently, but not right now; you are welcome to comment on this discussion Maestrofin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect that @Ocaasi: was canvassed to this discussion per [125]. Despite being an admin Ocassi had not commented on this noticeboard since September 2015 and was not in general active on wikipedia when they came here to make a very strong comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on their user page, there are several other highly plausible explanations than outright canvassing…honestly this is getting a little too Inquisition-y for my liking and while it may well result in discoveries that a do-no-harm editor like me would never have chanced upon, ArbCom has a nasty reputation for being a little indiscriminate with its remedies. Just so you’re clear on the risks/rewards. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a line between a witch hunt and hunting witches... But yes, I take your point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you were pretty much accusing the founder of WP:LIBRARY of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy not limited to LDS editors…lol
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's legitimate to point out that some GLAM higher-ups are circling WiR wagons in this dispute. Levivich (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [citation needed][clarification needed] RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I join you in soliciting additional evidence of same. Levivich (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Horse Eye, respectfully, how are you defining "active"? The link you provided shows activity every month from October 23, 2023 to March 2024. And if we go back to the next oldest 100 edits there is activity every month from May 12, 2023. And this is starting to feel a little creepy, imho. It may be best not to go down this road unless there is some sort of definitive evidence, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm defining active as "could reasonable be expected to have found this discussion through their normal editing." If you can come up with a way they got here let me know, IMHO their appearing here is a little creepy and I'd like some context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is already so complex that it's going to be hard for anyone to close it. Quibbling over a single participant's possible canvassing is adding more complexity. Even if this is true, it's not important. Toughpigs (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd disagree. If an admin were canvassed and still !voted (I have no opinions on whether or not they were), it would be a serious WP:ADMINCOND issue, potentially warranting a formal warning. It's certainly important if true. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed but…prima facie evidence much? Canvassing has a specific definition. Being hypothetically informed of a WiR getting in trouble, coming over to see what’s up, and then deciding on one’s own initiative to respond in a knee-jerk way is, unless I’m very much mistaken, not canvassing.
    Anyway, if the movement were as politics-ridden as was implied, then he in turn would, purely theoretically, probably be able to canvass a goodly number of experienced uninvolved editors who are overwhelmingly grateful to him for their free access to more things than even those enrolled at most top universities get.
    Separately, I sense that Awilley’s vehemence is probably related to the tone taken by jps and others. Even if mainstream consensus and anti-religion PoV intersect on points of fact (like that the society depicted in the BoM is, ya know, completely fictitious and Joseph Smith was quite literally pulling it out of his hat) that doesn’t give editors a blank check to exceed or breach guidelines (any of them). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh, even if it was canvassing, this is just one vote amongst many. starship.paint (RUN) 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing time?

    There have been no new comments in the main threads for a couple of days, so is it time for an uninvolved admin to close before the archiving bot gets trigger happy? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This should absolutely get the attention of a closer. I look forward to reading it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of the main thread is that it's a tricky close because of so many overlapping issues. On the one hand, there's a clear consensus that the user messed up in editing topics with a COI without adequately disclosing the COI. But there's no evidence that her editing was disruptive (quite the opposite). There's evidence that her student editors weren't doing a great job with NPOV and were too "in-world" on Mormonism-related topics. But she seems to be taking steps to address that as well, starting by having them only edit in sandbox for now. There are some users who seem to suggest that all paid editing should be banned, but AFAIK that argument doesn't have the force of policy behind it. There seems to be a numerical majority favoring a topic ban, but the editor is a clear net-positive on Wikipedia and shows a genuine interest in following the rules. In this thread she openly admitted fault, and then she went way beyond what is expected by listing all possible conflicts she could think of on her userpage. (See also the conversation with above with Valeree about which talk pages require a COI template.) The WiR thing is another complication that I think most people (including me) don't fully understand. And it seems the biggest COI violations (like the creation of The ARCH-HIVE) were unpaid—done on her on time from her personal account. This all makes for a thread that different admins could reasonably close in different ways.
    My suggestion would be to wait a day or two (I don't know if Rachel edits on Sundays) and see if people might be interested in finding a middle path...something between "topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed" and "no action". There might be some solution that would satisfy more people and solve the problem too, perhaps something along the lines of "Rachel Helps agrees to use the {{Connected contributor}} template on all articles in the LDS Wikiproject to which she makes substantive edits, and will not directly edit articles about BYU, its current staff, or its library. She agrees to follow the advice at WP:COIEDIT for subjects she has a close connection with, including using the {{edit COI}} template on the talk page. All article creations, even those from her personal account, must go through the WP:Articles for Creation process." Some guidance for what to do with her students would also be helpful.
    Is there any interest in this? ~Awilley (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) (involved here, in case anybody hasn't read the above thread)[reply]
    A 2007 close that led to an arbcom case above Special:Diff/140818119 suggests that this discussion is gonna be difficult to close definitively…RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand why people are opposed to a topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed even as they admit there were problems. What is the added benefit of these accounts being able to move around the pages about Mormonism? I think there is rather broad consensus that encouraging them to move towards new topics would be ideal. Wouldn't a topic ban do that? What I don't understand is why the "middle ground" is sought at all. If you think she and her students should be editing Mormonism pages, then she should be allowed to do so. If you do not, then why the worry about the topic ban? jps (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @jps My experience in many contentious (especially religious) topics around Wikipedia has been that there are often two major groups of editors in opposition with one another. One group usually has some affiliation with the topic that gives them three things: 1, motivation to edit, 2, above average knowledge about the subject matter, and 3, a non-neutral point of view. (1 & 2 are good things, 3 is a bad thing.) These users are usually opposed by another group of users who are 1, motivated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to counter the POV of the first group, and that, 2, have relatively little knowledge of the subject matter. It is good to have some friction between these groups of editors, since Wikipedia needs motivated editors, people with deep knowledge about the subjects, and a commitment to follow its PAGs. Sometimes you will find a smaller third group of editors between these two opposing groups. These editors may some affiliation with the subject matter with the corresponding POV problem, but they have decided that when they log into Wikipedia, they are going to put Wikipedia first. They have a deep knowledge of the subject, but they recognize their bias and they take steps to mitigate that. If improving Wikipedia is the goal, these editors are a precious resource. The main reason I'm defending Rachel Helps is because I see her as being part of this third group. Does that answer your question? ~Awilley (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You think being Mormon gives a person an above-average knowledge of Mormonism? I think it's the opposite. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike your comments. That is very disrespectful. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed: this is a completely unacceptable PA by Levivich, and not even attached to an actual point they're trying to make. Remsense诉 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Rachel not a member of group 1? She has motivation to edit, above average knowledge of the subject (such that one might have as a member of the church), and a non-neutral point of view. You are also a member of group 1, no? jps (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose if you're technical about it, a Venn diagram would show that group 3 is largely a subset of group 1. My own relationship with Mormonism is complicated and something I prefer not to discuss on-wiki, but I have tried my best try my best to be a good member of group 3. ~Awilley (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the controversy here is one over whether it is possible to be more or less in the service of NPOV. I would prefer that we simply admit that people with a close relationship with a subject will necessarily be biased. It is our job as editors to try as best as we can to put that bias aside and attempt to follow Wikipedia's consensus WP:PAGs to achieve WP:NPOV. To the extent that I think the BYU contingent has been unable to do that and to the extent it has been in the service of the particular bias which is more-or-less apparent at first glance from the consideration of their approaches in articles on the Book of Mormon is the extent to which I have concerns over WP:PAID, WP:COI, etc. in these areas. So while your complicated relationship with Mormonism is a concern, you (as far as I know) are not being paid to edit Wikipedia by an organization with an iron in that fire. Here is the bone of contention. This is why I am having a hard time seeing how this is amenable to compromise between "just stay away" and "there's nothing wrong with it". jps (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it the case that at this point, only the community can determine if a compromise is possible? I mean, the community has already reached a consensus on its preferred outcome. And admins are not likely to thwart the community's decision, imho. Also, since we are already here, wherever "here" is, we might as well move forward ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, Rachel can appeal in six months or whatever the time frame is. Time in between now and an appeal can be a benefit because it is a chance to show a proven track record. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    which is more-or-less apparent at first glance Except it isn't more or less apparent. The worst of those Book of Mormon topic articles were created decades ago, in the early 2000s, by completely different accounts with nothing to do with Rachel Helps (BYU) and were in far sorrier states before the BYU-paid editors actually added citations to sources other than the Book of Mormon. (To quote Ghosts of Europa, Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. [for clarity, Ammonihah was not expanded by a BYU-paid editor; that's an article I expanded])
    I'm aware of JPS having complaints. Yet some of these complaints have ranged from the genuinely inaccurate (I urge JPS to at some point accept the academic assessment of Joseph Smith as having been racist in a slightly different manner than has been insisted with repeated linking to a 30-year-old JWHA Journal article—and saying that isn't apologetics unless Max Perry Mueller's Race and the Making of the Mormon People (University of North Carolina Press, 2017) is Mormon apologetics, which would be a strange characterization for an academic book written by a non-Mormon about Mormon racism and white saviorism)—to the demandingly excessive, like at Talk:Ammonihah where JPS calls a non-Mormon literature professor a lunatic charlatan and repeatedly insists the article is incomprehensible because it doesn't provide an apologetics-style anthropology of background elements in the story like supposed Nephite ecclesioilogy.
    My bone of contention is that JPS's catastrophic description of the Mormon studies topic area that Rachel Helps (BYU) and the student employees have contributed to doesn't hold up in all cases and only holds up in a couple. My bone of contention is that speaking as a trans girl who was formerly a BYU student with a BYU student job (unrelated to the Wikimedian-in-residence business; I never met Rachel Helps (BYU) at BYU and instead met her and primarily got to know her via Wikipedia), this BYU contingent as JPS calls them never made me feel ashamed or like I was less than them, whereas the users most strongly insisting that Rachel Helps (BYU)'s contributions are catastrophically damaging have proceeded with a tear-down tone that's left me feeling paralyzed about editing completely unrelated things on Wikipedia. I cannot stress this enough when it's so bizarre. I came out as trans at BYU, and the behavior that has been on display here at Wikipedia in the midst of this whole "thing" has hurt more and inflicted more shame than I experienced back then. There's been attempts at outing and stalking, there's been bizarre additions to articles like throwing judge of ??? (actually with the question marks) in body text because apparently that was the best way to insist that article text I wrote wasn't clear enough about the intricate geopolitics of a Nephite society that NPOV means we're not supposed to be treating as nearly so real (JPS's train of thought on Book of Mormon topics more than once has resembled FARMS-style apologists much more than the 21st-century academic-critical field), I've been told my best effort to summarize available scholarship has constituted stupid games. At BYU, I didn't develop a fear I was being stalked. I didn't get talked about over the pulpit or in publicly-viewable forums. No BYU personnel ever followed me to an unrelated article to loom over my shoulder.
    I don't know what's up about Nihonjoe and ArbCom, and I don't know why the heck Thmazing has been so devil may care in tone and has been making articles cited so predominantly to blog posts. Let the sanctions on them fall as they must. But to apply the same broad brush more widely and without nuance or differentiation strikes me as reminiscent of the kind of thinking at which the Mormon Smokescreen Cabal joke was supposed to poke fun. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස:, you've certainly been around long enough to know that ??? is poor wikivoice. A couple questions: Can you point to consensus regarding the WSJ not covering climate change accurately? WP:WSJ makes no mention of it. Are you following [Hydrangeans] around and/or intentionally scanning their contributions for errors? I'm struggling to find an explanation for these edits besides you intentionally being harsh on [Hydrangeans]'s edits, although please provide one if there is. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it's well known that the WSJ is a problem when it comes to climate change denial: [126].
    I am not "following" [Hydrangeans] around. I did look at some of the articles she had last contributed to and did see this terrible "hockey stick controversy" WSJ article added in Ross McKitrick. This was not, to my knowledge, anything she added to the article. I do not find anything problematic about her work on that article.
    I think the lack of WP:AGF extended towards me from [Hydrangeans] is sad, but as you can see from our interactions on her talkpage, not surprising. I am leveling harsh critique on certain Wikipedia contributions she has made, but they aren't unforgivable sins by any means. Yes, I found the article on Ammonihah and most of the rest of the Book of Mormon pages to be pretty bad and needing a lot of cleanup. I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places. I think there is a lot more work to be done up to and including three question marks!
    jps (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are we discussing about again is it Rachel helps or her students Or all,
    Because this is a big mess Maestrofin (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't take issue with deleting that Wall Street Journal reference on the Ross McKitrick article. I'm sorry that I wasn't paying enough attention to delete it myself; my attention was taken up by belatedly implementing the results of a talk page discussion. What I take issue with are the looming and a tone that others others have talked to JPS about (the two linked diffs are written by someone who agrees with JPS on content, about a different article JPS was participating in). I take issue with someone who says he will not apologize for being a disruptive force instead of wanting to be a constructive force. I can accept we disagree about the utility of literary criticism as a secondary source about texts (although I find the lunatic charlatan invocation a perplexing characterization, especially as apparently applied to even completely secular scholarship), and I can accept we disagree about what makes good content in an Ammonihah article or what have you. I can accept being wrong about that, and I can accept those articles significantly changing. What I don't think I'm obliged to accept is an apparent priding of oneself on contributing disruptively rather than constructively, or behavior like going LOL (actual quotation, multiple times) at other editors' good faith interactions (at Talk:Ammonihah, at Talk:Massacre of the Innocents). The presumption of good faith is a core value on Wikipedia of course—and so is the recognition that being right isn't enough. A templated dove doesn't oblige me to roll over and just take the LOLs and Whachagonnados and pretend like that's restrained, polite talking. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please feel free to disagree strenuously with me, as you have been. You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things, but I'm happy to discuss these matters on my talkpage. jps (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize the WSJ's issue with climate change (though I am aware of WP:RSOPINION). Either way, thanks for answering my question about climate change.
    On second thought, I think the ???, while not perfect, isn't worth relitigating this whole debate. I welcome a close and don't need any further answers to my questions. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats an opinion piece... And the Editorial board at The Wall Street Journal is definitely known for bad takes on climate change. Note that [Hydrangeans] has a history of following around other editors (including to completely unrelated topics) and "looming" over their shoulder so their complaints are a bit much all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My own feeling, like I said above, is that this sort of paid editing (paid editing that doesn't follow WP:PAID and WP:COI, and a WIR program that doesn't follow the guidelines for those organization) is a hard red line. I'm not remotely convinced that the people in question knew more about the topic area or were in whatever respect more policy-compliant compared to the average editor, but either way it doesn't matter, for the reasons I outlined above - this is an actually serious problem which, as a precedent, would have implications far beyond this specific dispute. I'm also deeply unimpressed by an argument that we should make a special exception for someone just because some people feel they are irreplaceable - that is not how Wikipedia works or has ever worked. Based on that I'm unwilling to accept anything but broad topic-bans, and I expect this to go to ArbCom if necessary in order to get them - this has been discussed repeatedly, devouring massive amounts of editor time and energy, for four years. If it isn't ended in an extremely conclusive manner here, then the community has failed to resolve it and a broader ArbCom case is the only way to go. --Aquillion (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your third group is just the first group from its own POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would probably help if a request for closing was not immediately followed by relitigation of the above debate and related events from the parties who are most unlikely to change their minds. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'm not sure where to respond or if it's appropriate to respond. I'm open to helping to "fix" edits that me and my students have made if we can agree on what is appropriate for Wikipedia (including removing research). I'm open to a topic-ban. I'm open to a topic ban on just Book of Mormon pages (and BYU stuff?), since that seems to be the place where most of our edits have been criticized. I think our edits have been constructive in Mormon studies and Mormon history topics. I'm trying to be flexible here. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's great to hear, and will probably inform any closer's decision. But listen: since you're the one who's getting paid to edit Wikipedia, you should be the one proposing specific fixes and to-do items for yourself based on the extensive feedback you've already received over the past several years (from many unpaid, volunteer editors who could have been doing other things instead, I should add). In specific content terms, what are some of the specific edits you're planning to "fix"? What articles, what sections, what changes to your prior edits, specifically? Even just a few will help convey a sense of what you think is wrong with your prior edits, and how you will correct them. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of complaints about me personally, my job, and my edits here. One of the ones that I think is the most legitimate is the argument that we are using too much "in-universe" explanation for the books of the Book of Mormon. I think we could add more context to clarify on individual pages what a book of the Book of Mormon is. I'm watching the edits on BoM pages. It's difficult for me to look past jps's inflammatory language asking for clarification on issues where I or other people used ambiguous language to summarize theology that was ambiguous in the text that we summarized (but at least he is articulating his complaints to the extent of making edits). My plan is to watch how other editors resolve these edits to try to figure out what is the most objectionable part about our edits. Was it how we wrote the narrative sections? Is there a better way to introduce analysis of the Book of Mormon by members who are also Biblical or literary scholars, if that is appropriate to include on Wikipedia? Those are the kinds of questions I am looking for answers to. My current plan is to give myself and my students a break from editing Book of Mormon pages for the rest of the semester (here that's until the end of April), which I hope will give time for some consensus to develop and for one or two pages to get to a standard that is acceptable to the community, which I could then imitate. If my team returned to editing Book of Mormon pages, it would be either me, or me and one other student, to make the pace of editing slower to wait for review from other editors. And it would be great if I could find an on-wiki mentor who is not associated with BYU or the LDS Church to go to with my editing questions. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect this is one of those ANI discussions where each participant leaves with a lower opinion of every other participant, but for different reasons. That said, probably the best content-related argument against the topic ban (e.g. from Vanamonde) is that you are the editor who is most capable of fixing some of the content problems that have been identified in the topic affected by the ban. If that were true, then topic banning you would impede the process of fixing the content, making things worse overall. But from what you've said here for the first time (I think), it seems like your actual plan is to wait for other editors to (figure out how to) fix content in that topic area anyway. Not you, not now. Given this new information you've provided, that "best content-related argument against", aka "per Vanamonde", becomes much less persuasive, I think. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rachel Helps (BYU): I have to agree with Indignant Flamingo above. I opposed a TBAN because I believe you're among the few editors with the time and the inclination and the ability to help clean up some of the problems with articles related to Mormonism that you and your students have worked on, which in my view largely have to do with using sources too close to their subject and language that doesn't distinguish articles of faith from accepted fact. I opposed a TBAN despite the serious concerns many colleagues raised above, because I felt you would be willing to help rectify these issues. If you would rather take a break from the topic, though, I struggle to see why I, and others, should advocate for your continued ability to edit about it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: and @Indignant Flamingo:: Thank you for these question. I have been thinking a lot about what I have done wrong. It has been difficult for me to sift through feedback on my editing (and I have felt paralyzed by my own anxiety), but this conversation has helped me to narrow down what is important, and empowered me to have an opinion on how I think we could repair some of our work. With the Book of Mormon pages specifically, I think I got into too much of a binary mode about whether or not a source was "reliable." But for scholarship in Book of Mormon studies, especially from the 1990s or 2000s, sometimes it is more complicated than "this is a reliable source." Something I understood implicitly was that I shouldn't use Wikipedia's voice to summarize opinions about the Book of Mormon as a historical or archeological source--at the very least these should be consolidated into a section on apologetics, or, like you and others have suggested, excluded entirely. However, my students did not understand this implicitly like I did. They were doing what I told them--to summarize what a given source said about a topic and cite it in-line--when I should have instructed them to look more carefully at the implicit bias in scholarship, especially sources like Brant Gardner, which have some valuable analysis, but also work off of the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text. If we were to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, cleanup of archeological/historical arguments on pages we have edited would be my first priority. However, my students have experienced emotional damage from my incompetence. I would let them choose whether or not to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, with an option to continue their projects that are less connected with Mormons and the LDS Church. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indignant Flamingo asked for an example. Laban (Book of Mormon) contains a paragraph about the brass plates under "Interpretations". It is tricky because it mixes apologetic arguments with literary ones. I would remove this analysis, or introduce it differently: "Brant Gardner, writing under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text, has argued that the brass plates were a symbol of political authority and recordkeeping in the society of Book of Mormon people (Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites)." I would remove the Stephen Ricks info. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rachel, I'm so sorry this is making you feel so much anxiety. FWIW, I do not believe you have edited in bad faith, and I doubt I'm alone. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not very happy about this either and in my opinion this should be spun off from the AML issues with Nihonjoe and Thmazing unless and until the inquisitorially minded editors find clearer linkages.
    I’m not sure how this would best be handled, but I would be very wary of any permanent remedies being applied at this point and will slightly adjust my vote accordingly.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A clearer link than the three of them all being current/former board members of AML? What clearer link can there be than all three of their names appearing on the AML about us page? Levivich (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, why don’t you just ask her? She’s been very cooperative so far. And anyway, while the same person wearing two hats is obviously going to rub off both ways, sanctioning Rachel Helps (BYU) would include the whole BYU outfit, and I don’t believe the standard of evidence has yet been met to say that the BYU outfit has demonstrably colluded with Nihonjoe or Thmazing. If such a thing happened, it’ll probably come out over at ArbCom.
    The reason I’m now flip-flopping uncertainly is that I perceive jps as dragging their apparently long history of content disputes into this venue, and, along with others, making statements that could be reasonably interpreted as implying support of non-neutral handling of religion more generally, while HEB is making unsubstantiated allegations that faintly ooze a touch of Chekism.
    Meanwhile, Fram and some others have notably tapered off, most likely because they intuit that some more wheels are turning at ArbCom and/or elsewhere and further participation in the mud bath party here is worse than useless for anyone who wants to doggedly pursue the actual application of remedies.
    ANI is probably no longer an appropriate venue and pretty soon I think I’m gonna go make a formal closure request. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are already requests at WP:ANRFC and WP:AN. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't I just ask her what? I don't have any questions. There is, in fact, evidence that Rachel Helps (BYU) "demonstrably colluded" with Nihonjoe and Thmazing, and others. Some of the evidence has been redacted so I can't discuss it, but there's plenty of public evidence still on this page, VPM and the arbcom evidence page -- the evidence my support votes are based on. Look, bottom line: COI concerns have been raised for years about Rachel Helps (BYU). The people who pushed back the hardest against those COI concerns fall into three groups: BYU people, AML people, WiR people. I don't know if you're aware but arbcom already considered expanding the scope of its Nihonjoe case to include Rachel Helps/BYU/AML and voted against doing so. I think ANI is still the appropriate venue for this. This will be closed eventually, it might take some time as it's a long thread, and probably the best thing we can all do, including myself, is to stop making it longer, unless we're bringing evidence of something new. Otherwise, all the evidence and the votes seem to be in. Levivich (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rachel Helps (BYU); thank you, that is somewhat reassuring. I think you should seriously consider, though, keeping your students off of topics closely intertwined with Mormonism for the foreseeable future, assuming the lot of them do not emerge from this situation with TBANs. It's quite evident from this discussion that there have been problems with the mormonism-related content they have produced. I could speculate as to why, but I won't; I'll just say that dispassionately describing faith and belief in any system is difficult, and is not the sort of task an undergraduate may be up to. I say this to save you and your students further distress, as well as to protect our content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not looked at your Mormon studies/history related edits in any more detail than what was required for the post at VPM and at the start of this section. I have no doubt that many, perhaps even the majority, of you and your students edits on those topics were constructive. But that is to not see the wood for the trees.
    For me, COI editing is comparable to (in some ways) to sockpuppet editing—let me explain. It is a question of trust. Yes, a sockpuppet can contribute productively, in improving articles, taking part in processes, getting Wikipedia to function. But it is Wikipedia policy to block all sockpuppets on sight and to put all their edits up for immediate reversion. Why? Because once you mislead others to that extent, the trust is gone. And that the trust, or lack of, is fundamental, because good conduct is of equal importance to good content (and I say this as someone who focuses on the latter and occasionally fails at the former).
    It is the same for COI editing. After I have seen your lack of disclosures with, e.g. the account named BoyNamedTzu (I do not know what is public and what is not, but I know that you and I and Primefac and BoyNamedTzu and most of the people in this thread and everyone on The Site That Must Not Be Named know) how can there be trust? Especially for a person who has held a position which by rights should indicate you are above suspicion. To find that you were actively pushing back against the basic COI suggestions as far back as 2018, and you might as well throw that trust into a shoddily-built submersible and send it down to the wreck of the Titanic.
    The closer may decide that there are significant issues with your Book of Mormon editing, and that's more important. If that's the close, fair enough, I don't really mind—I know you have asked above and on WPO how to improve that aspect. But I want to be clear: I opened this section because I did not think you treated your fellow editors with adequate respect and consideration, not because I felt you were harming articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29: earlier than that, 2016 at least [127]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AndyFielding - failure to address community concerns

    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]
    Again: "Suggestions for simplicity, style, omitting redundant detail (in lede). I'd also like to point out that I've reverted those edits. AndyFielding can't feign missing notifications like this. It is disruptive. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Upgrade to ban. This is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a ban, but AndyFielding seems to be of the opinion that talking with other editors is a trap or is too stressful or beneath his notice. Who knows. But simply 100% refusing to engage with legitimate concerns of other editors is not how this works. I placed a direct request on his talk page to say something, anything, to acknowledge he is actually reading what other editors say. He's ignored it and continued to edit instead. To be sure, some of AndyFielding's copyediting seems fine, and it would be a shame to ban an editor over something so minor, but... come on. No complaint about instantly accepting any unblock request that simply promises to communicate, but communication is not optional on a collaborative project. SnowFire (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Block instead. A long-term, constant stream of bad edits mixed with a larger volume of good edits coming from an otherwise respected and trusted editor is more damaging than your daily vandal. AndyFielding's mission statement when he turned back on the idea of consensus (copied above) is against the philosophy of Wikipedia, and he has stayed on this non-collaborative track ever since. He must have understood what this would lead to and that this moment would come. It doesn't matter that most of his edits are fine when the bad edits will be repeated and there is nothing anyone can do about it but follow him around and detect and revert each one of them. And no one wants to do that and no one should be expected to do that. Alternatively, he could actually even keep not discussing as long as he remembers not to repeat the types of edits that are disputed, and for that he would at least need to read requests on his talk page not to repeat certain things and not repeat them—regardless if he thinks that the request is wrong. If he wants to prove that those particular edits are right, he would have to engage. It should be extremely easy for AndyFielding to be unblocked based on this. He can commit to respond to feedback on his talk page at least a little bit and commit not to do things that others ask him not to do without participating in dispute resolution. Therefore, an indefinite block is entirely preventative and is the only thing that can make this editor realign.—Alalch E. 20:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        no admin hasn’t taken any action yet Maestrofin (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another odd edit summary: "Suggestions for simplicity (e.g., contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs and must be continually reminded what the topic is—LOL)". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fantastic edit with a fine edit summary. Fixing repetitive references to the subject, fixing "located in", removing unprofessional wording like "from generation to generation", and other needed copyediting is obviously something that this editor excels at. The problem are the bad edits, not the good edits like this one. The summary is humorous and sufficiently accurately describes the edit. —Alalch E. 21:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it odd and unnecessary to suggest "contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs", but maybe that's just me. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say it's just you. I'd say that's uncivil language on AndyFielding's part. There's no need to LOL at other editors' best efforts. Pointy word choice about language and style is especially troubling, since some editors are contributing with English proficiencies that are sufficient for encyclopedic language but may fall short of the high-level prose AndyFielding believes they're implementing. Improving on language isn't wrong, but being right isn't enough to justify talking down to other editors through snippy summaries and flatly ignoring collaborative feedback. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Behaviour continues. Now the reference isn't used to source when Harvey was born, but that he was born. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone who removes text so that the only thing left is "XY was born", and does so in hundrets of articles, should be blocked per WP:CIR --FMSky (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support something, whether a block or ban, or at least a formal sanction of some sort. SnowFire and Soetermans sum up well what's in the linked diffs, and the behavior continuing even with the ANI notice demonstrates how a block or ban would be preventative, as behavior will continue otherwise. Copyediting and editing for concision isn't irreplaceable. Articles will be legible in AndyFieldings's absence—and may well be more legible. SnowFire's description of AndyFieldings's approach as constituting code golf is apt. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the beat goes on. When is it enough to perform some kind of action? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Could anyone do anything by any chance? 😃 --FMSky (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have drafted a polite "Final warning" message for AndyFielding but I am wondering if tolerating an idiosyncratic editor might be worthwhile. The problem for me is that AndyFielding is producing good edits and it's possible that cleaning up after him might be the way to go. For example, this diff has a glitch presumably from the visual editor (search for "<nowiki/>"). That glitch needs to be fixed. Would similarly cleaning up the pointy edits that remove the birth date from the article body be best for the encyclopedia? Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor needs a minder stalking their contribution history forever, there's a problem. As I wrote above, this is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a block ever - all AndyFielding has to do is literally just acknowledge the feedback and tone down the concision-above-all-else edits to a point that's a mere disagreement on style rather than clearly over the line. It could be done in seconds and by simply doing less work in his edits. But he isn't doing that no matter how much people have asked him to. There is a solution that doesn't involve a block and doesn't involve expecting other volunteers to clean up after him - it's just him communicating and discussing his edits, or at least just stopping the problematic behavior if he truly can't handle discussions. But if he isn't going to do that... SnowFire (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, I am not proposing an indef block or a ban, but I would like to see this behaviour to stop. This discussion was started nearly two weeks ago. There have been talk page messages, direct mentions (for good measure, AndyFielding, please stop this and maybe reply?) and their removal of date births in early life sections have been reverted. AndyFielding has been notified repeatedly. Communication is required. Instead, they have a habit of commenting through edit summaries, like I've shown before and which continues still (see "Let's just assume from now on that, unless there's some obvious ambiguity, "it", "he", "she" or "they" refers by default to the article's subject. This will save us all a lot of trouble and save WP untold storage and bandwidth fees. Don't thank me." and "Imagine, we could use this concise format on all WP town articles. Imagine. I imagine many things like this"). Maybe it's a competence issue or just a plain refusal to want to listen. Isn't a temporary edit block an option? They edit frequently, on a near daily basis. A block, say 48 hours or even a week, to prevent this disruptive editing and force them to change their attitude? If the block's over and they changed their ways there is still a competent editor, if they can continue a more drastic step can be taken. Thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I'm not very optimistic about how effective a 48-hour block will be—ignoring so much feedback over such a long period of time suggests entrenchment—but it does make sense to start with a temporary sanction and only escalate if really necessary. No need for the project to act on my lack of optimism when we could lead out with a generous attitude toward AndyFielding. All that to say, I support a temporary edit block as the step to take at this time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could try an escalating scheme. 31h, 72h, week, month, three months, six months, indef. with each block at least a week to a month apart (in spite of the undesirable edits reoccurring) to be able to see if the editing has changed. The WP:PREVENTATIVE grounds is that the shortest block should be tried first, then the second-shortest etc. instead of immediately indef, or 48h -> indef. Instead of stalking his contributions and cleaning up after him, any editor could identify one (one is enough) undesirable edit of the type identified in this discussion, and ask any admin to implement the next block in the scheme, which that admin should do.—Alalch E. 09:49, 29 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[128], disruptive cite tagging,[129][130][131] 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.[132] 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]

    - I would just like to add that, as we can see here, there seems to have been a productive consensus arrived at, and this without any negative behaviour that I can see. I will not pretend to be aware or delved into the material prior to my own involvement, so will not judge specific behaviour of individual editors for which I'm not aware, I only note that from my point of view, it seems that the Talk process worked and is working, and all in a respectful and positive way at Monarchy of Canada Talk and Main Space. Again, maybe there had been a bit of a breakdown warranting something, not sure, I'm only speaking to what I've seen since myself becoming a member of the discussion at that Talk page. trackratte (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If there is a consensus in that article it has been arrived at during Miesianiacal's current absence (and during his temporary ban from editing the article). Wellington Bay (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thankyou. What was his main point that was not valid? Which I mean, what part of what he was advocating for is not reflected in the current consensus? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exact statement was meriting a block. trackratte (talk) 16:40, 22 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: [133]; Removed citation added by Miesianiacal's old account: [134]; Removed unverified claim added by Miesianiacal: [135]. 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]
    Is this editor not already block from Monarchy of Canada articles? Moxy🍁 04:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was banned on March 13 for two weeks. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa: The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago. There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy. Meters (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really understand what's meant by "The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago". All I was saying is that edits from 14/15 years won't be taken into account. I dont think that's much in doubt. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Magnolia677's post preceding post included "Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were named after royalty ". That's why I wrote There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy. Meters (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not add "[this was] named after royalty" to any articles, unless with a reliable source. What Magnolia677 is referring to is my adding to articles on places listed at Royal eponyms in Canada a link to that article in the "See also" section, a number of which were removed and I didn't dispute the deletion. I think Victoria Park Collegiate Institute is the only article on which I argued for reinsertion and found cited info to support the connection to Royal eponyms in Canada. It was deleted two and a half hours later and that's the way it's remained ever since. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sanctions, if not an article or topic 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[136] or refusing to listen when challenged on civility: [137][138]. 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: [139]). 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 [140] backtracking from [141]. 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 [142]) 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]
    • Support topic ban - the ban could be reconsidered at a later point but at present the editor shows no capacity to negotiate or seek or accept compromise, or collaborate, let alone accept a consensus view he disagrees with. Wellington Bay (talk)
      Supplemental - there are still plenty of pages regarding the monarchy in the UK and other Commonwealth realms that Miesianiacal would be able to edit. If he can demonstrate a collaborative approach on those pages, then the Canadian monarchy topic ban can be revisited. Alternatively, if his approach does not change, the topic ban could spread to cover all articles regarding the British and Commonwealth monarchy (for lack of a better term). In any case, this topic ban wouldn't be the end of the road and he would have avenues where he could prove himself. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:58, 25 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]
      • Upgrade to support topic ban, broadly construed. Miesianical's response below is that actually, there is no problem and everyone is getting upset over nothing, because there's no proof of anything. I guess all the editors here taking exception to his collaboration style don't count as proof either? If he doesn't think there's a problem, then he can't fix it, so we are left with this. It's really not that hard to commit to accepting feedback, but he isn't even bothering to try. SnowFire (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I literally said that I'm open to accepting I've done wrong. But, since my analysis of the evidence (spelled out below) doesn't show me how I bludgeoned or abused tags, I'm asking (like, three times now) for clarification, so I can see what I might currently be missing or reevaluate what I see. Telling me "you did bad" tells me nothing about what exactly I did that was bad and, therefore, gives me no idea of how I'm supposed to modify my behaviour. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Miesianiacal: I believe you that was your intent. But intentions don't matter. Just as I'm sure you thought you were making a peace offering good faith, you have to believe everyone else that what actually comes across in your posts below is a desire to continue axe-grinding and bludgeoning with DrKay. As if that was the only problem, which it isn't, nor is it even the most important problem - it's your interaction with other editors in general.
        • You mentioned below that you need to work on brevity. I can't speak for others, but for me, I'd have been willing to change my vote to avoid a formal sanction with just three sentences or so. Something like "While I stand by my edits, I understand that consensus will sometimes be against me. I'll discuss these matters on the talk page rather than revert war, keep it to just a few paragraphs or so on the talk page, and let the matter drop if it seems like a one-against-many situation." And then actually do that. Something to keep in mind for your future editing. SnowFire (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding AN/I, then. It appears to me it sometimes, as in this instance, acts as a quasi-court. Someone's laid a charge against me. Unrelated, some misrepresented, incidents from months or years ago have been dragged in. To my mind, that, collectively, is all I'll be judged on, if I don't mount some kind of defence. Yet, at the same time, I don't want to be adamantly defensive--I want to say I don't see the charges as valid, here's why, but, I still accept they could be valid and I'm open to hearing--no, literally asking to hear--how so. Up to now, I would've thought something like your suggested statement would've been taken as a kind of flippant disregard of everyone's criticisms and that would be used against me. But, what you've said has made me question my interpretation of this as a trial.
    Alright. Well, I have no idea how long something like this goes on for. But, I hope there's time for me to reconsider my main response; I mean, what I've already written is there and, well, the consequences will be the consequences. But, my feelings and opinions aren't immutable. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also support some sort of action if Miesianical doesn't make efforts to be more collaborative. I haven't had any run-ins with them in quite some time because, frankly, I have very limited interest in monarchy. However my past interactions with them are very much in line with what others have said here - a tendency toward WP:OWN, bludgeoning on talk page and walking right to the edge of WP:3RR. If they're still up to these antics nearly a decade on then I'd say they should be invited to consider making some changes to their editing behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from anything to do with the Canadian monarchy & perhaps the monarchies of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms (past & current) broadly construed. Indeed, two RFCs shouldn't have been required at Monarchy of Canada, but I didn't know what else to do to stop the disruption. Also see this RfC at British royal family, from about a year ago. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per user:Cullen. Off the top of my head I don't remember noticing this editor's work in other areas, but certainly the Canadian area is an issue. I don't believe this editor's bludgeoning is made in good faith. Meters (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - As mentioned, my experience at Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty? and similar articles was not positive. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The response by Miesianical below speaks for itself. In the RFC I asked for Miesianical to drop the stick and the response was baffling. Hopefully the editor learns something from this discussion so the behavior doesn't spread elsewhere. - Nemov (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on Canadian monarchy and perhaps on the Commonwealth monarchy per above. Clearly a widespread and longstanding complex of issues. Especially the apparent suppression of information regarding support for republicanism in Canada, that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Enough of the bias, I'll support the topic ban. JM (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on all Commonwealth monarchies. I feel like a more "broadly construed" topic ban would be best suited here, because of how inter-connected everything is. Charles, the King of Canada, is legally distinct from Charles, the King of the UK, but I fear a "Canada only" topic ban would lead Miesianiacal to bring their issues to other pages like Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Monarchy of Australia, etc... under the guise of the fact that they are technically not discussing the "Canadian royal family" anymore. Canuck89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page 09:04, March 26, 2024 (UTC)

    As the person who started this is pointing specifically to Monarchy of Canada and disputing something is not a crime (if it were, all those here referencing the disputes they were engaged in with me on other articles over many months through the past would be guilty of it, as well), I'm only going to address matters at Monarchy of Canada; for now, anyway. Alone, I can only deal with one thing at a time.

    This is not proof of bludgeoning. It's one person's opinion and one can see, preceding the person's remark, they asserted, "you've said your piece," when I hadn't actually said any piece, I'd asked a question: "So, what now?" That's an invitation to move forward toward a resolution. Indeed, in the preamble to that question, I acknowledged the source DrKay provided and the fact it supported the statement, "the Canadian monarch lives in the United Kingdom". I even made the point of the question clear: "there are now two takes on this: 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he lives in the UK' and 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he is monarch of 14 other countries and his principal residence is in the UK', each supported by one RS." That very evidenlty accepts DrKay's source, as it sought to find a way to deal with two sources--DrKay's one and this one--saying two not necessarily mutually exclusive, but, different things. DrKay chose never to answer the question, thereby exacerbating dispute, rather than working toward a resolution.

    That continues in the same vein:

    • This is a question
    • This is agreeing with someone
    • This isn't pushing anything; it's a comment on DrKay's misunderstanding of the dispute (he thinks I (and at least one other) want to have the article say the monarch lives in Canada, when I never, ever (and I mean ever) did)
    • This is again agreeing with someone
    • This is a civil attempt to get a reverting editor to explain his edits and/or desired edits
    • This and this were part of an agreeable discussion

    And that's the sum total of my contributions to the RfC, aside from my own answer to it. If anyone can explain how that meets the definition of "bludeoning", I'm truly fascinated to read it.

    I haven't been blocked from Talk:Monarchy of Canada. So, my absence from the discussion is only because I haven't been on Wikipedia over the past few days and correlation does not imply causation.

    There was more than a week between the placement of This tag (which was quickly thereafter moved by me to make clear I was not challenging the claim that the monarch resides in the UK) and these tags. The latter two are two completely different tags addressing two different variations of an edited sentence. Tagging disputed material is not a crime and I clearly brought up at talk the issues the tags were flagging, exactly as one is supposed to do. Again, how that's "disruptive cite tagging" (even the spirit thereof) requires further explanation, including how DrKay placing numerous tags on 4 March and 5 March, employing his usual tactic of "discussion by edit summary", is not.

    There's no proof given of "WP:POINTy tendentious editing". There's no proof given of my making such edits "every time any other editor tries to edit [the] article". There's no proof given of the article being a "farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth."

    And "[this proves] how nasty and desperate you are" [143], from DrKay on Talk:Monarchy of Canada, is an overt personal attack, which a continuation of the earlier attacks from him that both crossed and didn't quite cross WP:NPA: "Don't play stupid, you know damn well what's meant" [144]; “you are ruining more than one article on my watchlist” [145]; "you don't assume good faith [...] Treat them like shit you've scraped off the bottom of your shoe and they will likely respond by blanking your messages to them and asking you not to message anymore. Please do not message me anymore" [146]; this accusation of bad faith; this unconstructive attempt at besmirchment; etc. There are certainly zero examples of my expressing anything to DrKay that violates WP:NPA.

    Again, eludication on the matters of bludgeoning and abusive cite tagging would be helpful so I can have clear understanding of the rules so I can follow them properly, if, indeed, I haven't been, so far. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To sum up, "I did nothing wrong. It's all DrKay's fault." This is a version of what I said above: blaming others and refusing to accept you've done anything wrong. You claim here that there is no evidence of bludgeoning, but then in your final link here ("this unconstructive attempt at besmirchment") you link to a discussion where there are 13 diffs showing you making the same comment 13 times, which you claim is not bludgeoning. DrKay's behaviour is far from laudable but then you shouldn't have goaded them should you? Celia Homeford (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked above for clarification on how my interactions at Talk:Monarchy of Canada constituted bludgeoning and my use of tags on Monarchy in Canada was abusive cite tagging. That is altogether different from "it's all DrKay's fault". (DrKay's personal insults being my fault is an opinion I'll ignore.) DrKay making two accusations of bludgeoning against me doesn't prove I ever engaged in bludgeoning; and I need to point out here, because mention of it is absent from your remark: in response to his first accusation back in May 2023, I presented DrKay with the proof that I didn't actually "[make] the same argument over and over, to different people" (it was just a weeks-long and wide-ranging dispute involving many different people and some requests outside it for new people to join and possibly help break impasses). After that, he dropped the argument.
    DrKay might be at fault here; given he's violated WP:NPA numerous times to make his hatred of me clear and half of his OP at the top is unsubstantiated, negative opinion, he may possibly have revealed that his motivation is personal. He might not be at fault. It might be that he I and are both at fault, in our own ways. Even if, hypothetically, for now, DrKay did start this for the wrong reasons, that wouldn't mean I didn't actually do some of what he's accused me of. Hence, I'm requesting edification, preferrably from neutral, dispassionate parties who'll consider all the evidence in its proper contexts. Because, as I explained above, I personally, right now, don't see how the evidence backs up the charges (particularly the bludgeoning one). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I would dispassionately recommend is to work on being more concise. These text walls contribute in part, though not in whole, to the sense of bludgeoning. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I feel hung between a need to be thorough and to be concise. But, brevity is a challenge for me here and off Wikipedia; I'm working on it for reasons that exist outside of this realm. However, the walls of text contributing to a sense of bludgeoning on talk pages is a new perspective to me and interesting; I can get it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My edit on 4 March: [147], tags a self-published vanity project, an anthology of fictional works, and an official Canadian government source that says explicitly, not that the Queen resided in Canada, but that she belongs in the same category as "foreign heads of state" and that she "visits" Ottawa along with "other royal visitors". The edit on 5 March: [148] removes an invention of Miesianiacal's that George VI's 1939 state visit to the United States was on behalf of Canada uniquely. He knows this invention is untrue because we had a long discussion about it at Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother/Archive 2#Royal tours. The same edit tags a source that does not support the material it is next to. The edits therefore demonstrate that sources are twisted and that the article includes original research. He also lists a series of uncivil edits but fails to mention that they are all in response to his baiting, which can be seen by looking at the comment(s) to which they respond or the preceding edits. For example, [149] is in response to the unsubstantiated claim that I think the article used to say the Canadian monarch lives in Canada. That is untrue. I should not have taken the bait but it is difficult to avoid doing so when it is so frequently flung in my face. If Miesianiacal doesn't want to awaken bears, he shouldn't poke them with a stick. Once again in his response to this discussion, we are faced with his absolute refusal to acknowledge any bludgeoning. DrKay (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I was not involved in this original dispute, but became involved in discussions after commenting in the second RfC. As I wasn't involved at that time, I don't think I have anything useful to add about users' conduct while the first RfC was taking place. I will say though that some of DrKay's comments since have not been particularly productive. Calling other editors comments (mine included) "Farcical garbage", wrongly accusing them of strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, and deflection aren't really helping anyone reach consensus there. It seems the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw "farcical garbage" pursuant to Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility #1d.[150]. DrKay (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect. This discussion, concerning a cartoon episode, was memorable. I'm not certain how to describe the content dispute that took place there, a year ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. My apologies for the length of the following. But, there's a lot to address.

    I've taken some feedback and looked at the whole of what this expanded into from the initial accusations. I've been editing here for 20+ years; I have crossed paths with many, many editors. The vast majority of interactions have been without significant problem. However, I have also sometimes been a problem. Admitting as much has prompted me to improve my collaborative manner; over even eight months ago (these recent discussions--1, 2, 3--are perfectly fine). I'm okay with disagreement; I'm willing to compromise (if it's not a policy matter).

    But, if my self-reflection is accurate, what's still been problematic up to now is my reaction to what I perceive as not being heard; in whatever manner. I've taken it as an unnecessary drawing out of the dispute and felt an RfC will do so even more (implying an impatience on my part). I become not incivil, but... blunt in my interactions with the other party. Now I see that, ironically, my insistence on getting the other party to hear me (driven, again ironically, by a want to find a mutually agreeable resolution) often leads to an RfC, anyway. The ends truly don't always justify the means. This is not to pick on DrKay; I just think it's relevant to show that even he and I can interact in a completely decent way: 1, 2. So, my problem must be how I've been dealing with communication breakdown; between myself and anyone I think it's happening with.

    Putting whatever restrictions will inevitably be imposed on me aside, going forward, I'll accept what I think are failures to communicate as soon as I believe they've happened and that the wider community then has to be brought in; I'll accept there's no deadline to complete an edit. Of course, consensus is, as always, consensus. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In the 20+ years, there seems to be (from you) a tendency to advocate for the monarchy in Canada, to be viewed in a certain way on Wikipedia. One might see this as breaching WP:RGW. Charles III, like his mother, grandfather, etc, before him, are/were most recognized as British monarchs. That's simply how the world sees it. At Monarchy of Canada (for example), we can't be suggesting in anyway, that the monarch resides/lives in Canada. Anyways, that's my theory on what's the core of your problematic behavior. It's up to the community to decide on what to do. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there has been WP:RGW behaviour by editors at Monarchy of Canada, it appears to have occurred on both sides of the initial debate there. With all due respect, I am not sure someone calling for a Canadian Republic on their user page is the best person to cast that particular stone. It seems to me many users are talking past each other on the talk page, which seems to be continuing in the new discussions on Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Residences. MIESIANIACAL is one of the editors commenting in the debates there, but the persistent content dispute(s) there, and the resulting walls of text, are of many editors makings. As I said above, I think the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't edit as a republican & have at times been considered a closet-monarchist. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A person dusclosing a political position on their user page should not guide which pages they are permitted to edit. Only whether their edits adhere to Wikipedia standards. As an example, my strident anti-monarchism had nothing to do with my positions regarding the Where is Kate article - only BLP standards. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be dangerous if we went down the path of declaring people to be in a COI because of their ideology or belief. Monarchists (or republicans) should no more be banned from editing articles on the monarchy than Christians should be banned from editing articles on Christianity (or even articles on the church they belong to), or Liberals or Conservative supporters or members be banned from articles on the Liberal or Conservative parties or liberalism or conservatism as ideology. What we should look out for is editing conduct and POV-pushing. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletions of (article) talk page material

    I have a long-running dispute that has started on 8. January when User:Chaheel Riens deleted 26 KiB of talk page material. I would like the mentioned 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored (archiving it would also be fine with me). However, this dispute is interrelated with the correct interpretation of WP:TPO, and it might have important consequences as such.

    As a justification for his actions, User:Chaheel Riens provided WP:FORUM, WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO, here. After some further arguments and counter-arguments, he refused to properly argue . I think that there was some amount of WP:LAWYERING involved on his part, but I don't see that as important.

    I took the issue to the DRN, but it was not successful. However, my conclusion was that DRN was not a proper venue, because the central issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material, which is a conduct issue.

    The relevant guideline related to this problem seems to be WP:TPO. Some experienced editors are interpreting it as supporting the disputed deletion, while other experienced editors are of the opposite opinion. The editors who support the deletion are referencing various parts of WP:OR to justify the disputed deletion. In my opinion, such justifications are invalid, because WP:OR clearly states: This policy does not apply to talk pages... Other justifications for deletion are invalid due to similar reasons. My conclusion is that the policies are supporting my side of the argument, therefore the deleted talk page material should be restored and then archived.

    Currently, this dispute is stuck at some kind of status quo, as I was absent for a month, and other editors apparently refused to argue further. I think that further arguments would be futile anyway, because this dispute is essentially about two widely different interpretations of WP:TPO, as it was noticed here .

    This dispute is unlikely to be resolved by any kind of discussion between involved parties. I judge that WP:ANI is the relevant authority for this kind of disagreement, because deletions of talk page material are conduct issues. To escape the status quo, some definitive guidance is needed about the proper course of action in this dispute.

    Initial discussion at ZX Spectrum graphic modes

    Link to the continuation of discussion after DRN failed.

    Link to the discussion at WP:TPG talk page.

    - Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this still the same discussion where you pretty much accused me of being a scammer and a liar? I distanced myself when it because clear it was turning into a slow-motion train crash while beating the dead horse at the same time. I've given a cursory glance over it since I last commented, and you don't seem to be gaining much favour - even the editor who was critical of me seems to have washed their hands of you and the discussion. This could be a case of WP:FILLIBUSTER where you just go on and on and on and on and on until everybody simply gives up in exasperation. I've taken the liberty of pinging the other involved editors who were missed, but the discussion is such a mess it's hard to see if all have been included. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never accused you, or anyone, of being scammers and liars. It is just your interpretation of one hypothetical statement of mine, which I posted in a separate discussion about copyright issues [151] [152] that isn't really related to this one. I apologize to you any everyone involved if you were offended by a lack of clarity in my writings, because I don't think that you are a scammer or a liar.
    I argue that what you have just suggested is essentially an attempt to perpetuate the status quo. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z80Spectrum: You mentioned "the possbility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers". Would you have included Chaheel Riens in that group? City of Silver 18:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit that, at that specific moment, I was quite confused about what is happening. Therefore, my statement in question did not refer to anyone in particular. The copyright issues are a serious problem, and my statement was intended to alert to the importance of those issues. I appologized here to another user, User:4throck, who might have been most obviously affected by that unfortunate statement of mine. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't belong here or indeed anywhere. The proper path forward is to work on something else. What practical difference is there between moving this information to the talk page archive vs having it available in diffs? Unwillingness to repeat oneself endlessly is not "refused to properly argue." VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not again! - I tried to mediate the dispute, which was originally presented as an article content dispute, but was really mostly a dispute about the removal of talk page material. I developed DRN Rule F and was preparing to mediate a discussion about the removal or restoration of the article talk page material. User:Z80Spectrum then began discussing the dispute with User:Ritchie333, an end run around my mediation, so I failed the mediation.
    • I will comment that I started off sympathetic to User:Z80Spectrum about the talk page edits. The guidelines on editing other editors' talk page posts are poorly written, and do not clarify when the removal of talk page material is in order. My opinion is that they should state that removal is only rarely appropriate, and that normally disputed talk page material should be either archived or userfied. So I started out thinking that User:Chaheel Riens had been overly aggressive, but I tried to maintain neutrality. User:Z80Spectrum soon acted aggressively, making an accusation on the talk page of User:Ritchie333 that I still don't entirely understand, but that appeared to be casting aspersions. Two months later is late to apologize for a personal attack that was called out at the time. Now User:Z80Spectrum wants to reopen a dispute that had faded away more than a month ago.
    • This filing is a boomerang thrown by User:Z80Spectrum. If the community agrees with User:VQuakr that there isn't a current issue, then the issue is what to do about this vexatious litigation by the filing editor. I think that there wasn't a current issue until this report was filed, but now this report is reopening something.
    • One possible resolution to this case would be a one-way interaction ban on User:Z80Spectrum against interacting with or attacking User:Chaheel Riens.Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not "reopening" this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.
      I would like to point out that all I want is the 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored and archived (that's the primary reason for this WP:ANI report). I will accept the interaction ban on my behalf, or any similar measure, to get that deleted content restored. I also wanted to clarify the ambiguities in the WP:TPG guideline, but that is secondary. This dispute is not about opinions, it is about proper application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and those are not decided by a community vote.
      I think that your accusation of vexatious litigation is not very nice. What else should I have done to get the deleted content restored? Did I not do everything you have suggested to me? Did you communicate any other suggestions to me earlier? I do not care about any measures to User:Chaheel Riens, as I have said earlier on your talk page.
      From my point of view, User:Chaheel Riens was misinterpreting my words so I felt no need to apologize on my own incentive. If he had asked me to apologize on my talk page, I would have apologized. I even apologized to one unrelated editor, here [153]. The discussion at DRN was interrupted due to the copyright issues, and I considered those a priority over the DRN discussion. In spite of your alleged "sympathetic" stance towards me, your post is a one way attack against me, with not a single word said in defense of my perspective. Therefore, I doubt your neutrality.
      I certainly don't want this discussion to get derailed again by off-topic comments, so I would like to remind that the reported issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material. If my conduct had not been stellar, I will accept the consequences, I will accept the boomerang, but I won't accept if the reported issue is completely ignored. Z80Spectrum (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think this boomerang has NOTHERRE written on it; way too much valuable time has been wasted on this.  // Timothy :: talk  05:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another Reply to User:Z80Spectrum

    User:Z80Spectrum writes:

    I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not "reopening" this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.

    When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? In early February? I started a discussion of talk page removals at the Talk Page Guidelines talk page, in which I said that the talk page guidelines about removal of talk page posts were poorly written. Between 4 March and 17 March? You took a break from editing. If you were ill, I am sorry that you were ill and hope you have recovered. If so, I apologize for any rudeness on my part.
    You say that the dispute was never closed. It was never closed at the Talk Page Guidelines talk page. It was closed at DRN. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. It was your fault that you entangled two disputes, which confused me and confused User:Ritchie333, and looked to me like a personal attack on User:Chaheel Riens.
    It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault.
    If you were ill, I am sorry, and I hope that you have recovered. In any case, the talk page removal is not a conduct issue, because it is an issue of a poorly worded guideline. If there is any conduct issue, it is your conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pt1. User:Robert McClenon said: When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you?
    For example, at any time after 21 February 2024 would have been fine, after I had pinged you.
    Pt2. User:Robert McClenon said: It was closed at DRN. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue [...cut...] It was your fault that you entangled two disputes [...]
    No, it was not my fault. Or, maybe it is my fault, if I was supposed to stop the editing completely while the DRN case was in progress. How could I had known in advance that my attempt to coordinate efforts with User:4throck would lead me to stumble upon the copyright issue (which is at the end of a discussion with him)?
    User:4throck was previously mostly sympathetic towards me and my writings, like in this comment, which is a part of the 26 KiB of deleted content.
    Pt3. User:Robert McClenon said: [...] you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars.
    No, that is just your interpretation. I have said: "You must consider the possibility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers.", here. There is a big difference. Notice the words "possibility" and "might". I don't like such serious misinterpretations of my words.
    Pt4. User:Robert McClenon said: It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault.
    The evidence is mounting that you were never sympathetic or neutral. For example at DRN, you took no action against this comment, where another editor is acting contrary to your Wikipedia:DRN Rule F, section 9 (also, in my opinion User:Chaheel Riens is completely misinterpreting the "archiving problem" there).
    Two days before that, I reported this case to WP:ANI, based on what you have said
    here, and based on behavior of User:Chaheel Riens, where it took him 42 hours to reply with this comment where I was accused of making a "threat".
    After I reported the case to WP:ANI, you have proposed to continue the moderated discussion, which was fine. However, after I objected , the case at ANI should have been reopened, and the case at DRN should have been closed, as you have previously stated. Instead, you said I would suggest that you follow the guidance of User:Ritchie333 who closed your complaint at WP:ANI., defending the inappropriate closure of my case at WP:ANI. I agreed, nonetheless. However, given all that has happened at the DRN, it was quickly getting obvious that the case has no chance of succeeding, and it was getting worse by a series of misinterpretations by User:Chaheel Riens. For example: I was the one who agreed to archiving, and I clearly stated it at least three times: here , here, and much earlier, here on User:Chaheel Riens talk page. In the DRN discussion, User:Chaheel Riens was constantly making it appear as if I had something against archiving, by citing various technical trivialities, and by attempting to dodge the archiving question as long as possible.
    Pt5. However, I decided to interpret all that as a honest mistake on your part, User:Robert McClenon. I considered that the "honest mistake" interpretation is the most likely one.
    Pt6. By the time I raised the copyright issue, the discussion at DRN had already have failed, at least from my point of view. I also consider the legal situation with copyright to be of much higher priority.
    Pt7. I judge that all the arguments against me are either gross misinterpretations of my words or gross misinterpretations of the entire situation. From my point of view, it is now quite likely that some of those misinterpretations were intentional, and some are a consequence of common human biases (i.e. User:Robert McClenon is far from being neutral, he is just acting in support of a long term editor, and against me as a newbie). I judge that even such are a normal and expected part of discussions.
    All the evidence shows that I was the one who had a lot of sympathy for both User:Robert McClenon and for User:Chaheel Riens, and I still do. I'm willing to instantly forget all the injustices that you have done to me, under the condition that the 26 KiB of deleted material is restored. Then we can engage in a discussion whether that material is WP:OR, or not, on the "ZX Spectrum graphics modes" page, and any further implications of that material.
    Took me three hours to write this. I hope that you appreciate it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang, whether that's a WP:CIR block, or a topic ban to prevent future disruption. This should have been dropped months ago, but instead Z80Spectrum has chosen to drag it out. WP:FORUM is definitely a bit vague, but this is not a good choice of edits to pick a fight over. What's more concerning is Z80Spectrum's insistence that this must be resolved to their satisfaction, after leaving it fallow for a month, as well as trying to insist the real problem is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material, rather than their dogged insistence on litigating this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was not "insisting" on anything. I don't have the power to do so. I was saying that I would very likely consider it unjust if my complaint about the deletion of the 26 KiB of deleted material is disregarded. I don't see any way in which that deletion can be justified, in the sense that I expect the deleted material to be restored.
      User:HandThatFeeds said after leaving it fallow for a month ... Wikipedia is not my full-time job. As I red in one of the essays, time passes slowly here, and breaks in disputes are usually welcome. It can be easily verified that all the last comments (before I took a break in this dispute) are mine, and that it was other editors who all went silent before I took a break. I can't reply to their silence. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Z80Spectrum, I mean this with all due respect and in all good faith, but for your own good, walk away. Deciding to go to battle with Robert McClenon, who is basically Wikipedia's aptheosis of equanimity, is not going to find you favor. We know how you judge your situation, but please take into account that others may judge it differently. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your reply, which I judge was in very good faith. Unfortunately, I habitually don't respond affirmatively to any arguments from authority. All arguments with me have to be properly justified, in a properly conducted and fair discussion. If that is unacceptable on Wikipedia, feel free to ban me. So yes, I'm going to argue against the respected User:Robert McClenon, until the arguments show that I'm in the wrong, or until I'm banned. Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I am not saying you must agree with anything Robert says. I am merely saying there is a vast swath of territory between 'disagreement' and 'picking a fight.' Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments. I'm also giving a peaceful offer, which is the same one from the very start of this case: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved. Perhaps I forgot to say that I will likely write about this incident on my user page, but I can try to avoid mentioning names there. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm also giving a peaceful offer[...]: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved.
      It's either your way or total war?!?? Paradoctor (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia is not my full-time job.
      No one is saying it should be. But, after a month, the discussion is dead and over. Dragging it back out over and over to get your way is just tendentious. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z80Spectrum: in reviewing past interactions I was reminded of this (quite specious) interaction regarding copyright. When people are talking about WP:CIR in this context, "competence" is regarding your ability to collaborate on a project that is defined by its collaboration. It seems to me that you have battled or argued with nearly everyone you've interacted with; is that a habit you are able to change? VQuakr (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A fair question. Primarily, Wikipedia is a system. More precisely, Wikipedia is a complex system consisting of a community of people, principles, policies and guidelines, server-side software and data.
      All complex systems have faults of significant importance, and no human-made system ever has worked without failures. I am a newbie user here. I have to defend myself from all the consequences of the Wikipedia-as-a-system, including its many faults.
      In the case you have mentioned, if the copyright information of the problematic image was invalid, then I would have been legally liable to persecution. I consider such circumstances as a physical attack on me, as a consequence of one of Wikipedia's failures. I considered it as a grave and important situation.
      Wikipedia can't claim infallibility. I can't just rely on opinions of a few editors, or on information displayed by Wikipedia. Thus I demanded an opinion of an expert. I had every right to defend myself, in my opinion. When I got a good-enough explanation, I accepted it. If I have extensively argued before that moment, it means that I always had some unanswered objections.
      The problem would not have existed if the disputed image was hosted on Wikipedia, instead of a third-party website.
      Instead, Wikipedia-as-a-system forced me, under a possibility of a legal threat, to extract the necessary copyright information from Wikipedia in a somewhat aggressive way. No one was seriously harmed, as far as I can tell.
      You are correct in stating that I have argued with many people on Wikipedia. The problem is that I joined Wikipedia with a dispute-at-hand. It was not just an ordinary dispute, but a dispute where conflicting interpretations already existed before I joined Wikipedia. That is not my fault.
      I would honestly suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to try to fix its own faults first, and to not shift blame on the users, and especially not on newbie users. Unfortunately, complex systems are similar to persons, and they don't like to be criticized, so they usually don't listen to criticisms. I would also suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to be more tolerant of newbies, to not try to immediately intimidate them with WP:LAWYER. When reading many pages and essays here, I came under the impression that this criticism is already well-know, and that the real problem is in Wikipedia's reluctance to improve itself. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My thoughts:
      - There are many ways you could improve Wikipedia that don't involve trying to restore that talk page - ways which it seems to me that a lot of others in this discussion would rather be doing instead of discussing this even more. Maybe seems unfair, but it appears that that is the current state of things.
      - If you want to improve the article and discuss it in the talk page, you can still do that, if you want to look at the deleted talk page content to find ways to improve the article, you can also still do that (by looking at the talk page from before it was removed).
      - Are you right? Are you wrong? Those questions should matter a lot less than questions like "How can we move on? What can we still improve? How can we discuss it in a way that won't result in someone interpreting it as violating WP:TALK?".
      The big thing here, is that this does not appear to be an issue of great significance, and the more time that is taken to either try to resolve the dispute or discuss things here in ANI (honestly, the more time that it takes to read big walls of text too) the less people are going to want to do that, because it's a lot of time for little gain.

      I don't agree with people saying that you should be sanctioned for making this ANI thread and for having dug this topic after people had moved on, because you made this thread as a way to continue the dispute (which seems to have been left as a possibility in the conclusion of the the DRN discussion) and because of what your intentions appear to have been when making it, but I think that you should withdraw this ANI thread and move on from and forget this dispute before people actually do get you blocked for it.
      The value you bring to Wikipedia is directly weighed against the time that is taken away from other editors without that time being used to improve or protect the Wikipedia.
      – 2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And just to be clear, since I'm unsure how aware of how things work you are, withdrawing means saying that you do, that's all. – 2804:F1...7E:615D (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If I understand it right, you are suggesting a compromise in which I withdraw, and I also suffer no consequences. I decline such a compromise (which was provided in good faith) due to the following:
      Objection 1. Such a compromise implies that I consent to devaluing most of my work on Wikipedia so far, in return for some kind of "safety". I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not.
      Objection 2. Such a compromise is not in accordance with my stated principles of justified and fair discussions. I would much rather see and suffer the consequences of the outcome which is at this moment uncertain, than to retreat without being given proper justifications.
      Objection 3. I think that I'm fighting for the right cause. The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals. One of the worst outcomes from my point of view would be the perpetuation of the status quo, in which WP:TPG remains ambiguous. Z80Spectrum (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals.
      You are vastly overestimating the importance of this discussion. You're also fighting the wrong battle. If you want sanctions, I expect you're going to get them now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. VQuakr (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Z80Spectrum, if you feel being banned from the topic page or Wikipedia in general is worth making your point, then that is certainly fine. I just want to make sure you're aware that you are making the former a near certainty and the latter more and more probable. All the best however things should go. Dumuzid (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, Dumuzid. If I'm banned, I can take it. I wasn't editing Wikipedia much before this incident, and I can certainly live without editing Wikipedia in the future. I wasn't even planning to edit Wikipedia, I was just bored, about 4 months ago. So, don't worry about me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet Another Reply to User:Z80Spectrum

    You seem to be arguing with yourself, and one of the risks of arguing with oneself is that one may lose the argument. On the one hand, you agree that the guideline on editing the talk page posts of other editors is poorly written and ambiguous. On the other hand, you say that you have reopened this WP:ANI thread because the removal of your 26K post is a conduct issue on the part of User:Chaheel Riens. If the guideline is poorly written, it is unfair to argue that there was a conduct violation, but maybe you are arguing both ways.
    You have now decided that I was never neutral. You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored, because I thought and still think that deletion of talk page posts should only be done rarely. I disagreed with User:Chaheel Riens, and thought that they were overreacting when they deleted your 26K post. I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored either to an article talk page archive, to your user talk page, or to a user talk page archive. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of User:Ritchie333. It appeared to me that you are asking for his help with regard to the dispute about the talk page post. I now see that you were asking for his help with regard to a copyright dispute. I still don't know what the copyright dispute was, and I am not sure whether I want to know.
    You say, in Pt 3, that I misunderstood what you were saying, about scammers and liars. That is probably true, but you said that you had evidence:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARitchie333&diff=1197436589&oldid=1197435165

    You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation.
    You write:

    I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments.

    If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. You say that you didn't invite me here. By "here", do you mean WP:ANI? It is true that you didn't ping me, but I was always here. Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. You wrote: I'm not "reopening" this dispute, as the dispute was never closed. So did you think that I would have forgotten about it?
    I didn't pick a fight.
    Thank you, User:Dumuzid, for your positive comment.

    Starting Over ?

    Now, at this point, here are the issues that I think remain:

    • 1. User:Z80Spectrum wants their 26K of deleted posts back. That material has not been revision-deleted. Z80Spectrum can copy it to a user subpage in user space. If they want it in article talk space, they can resume the discussion of the talk page guidelines, but at least they will have it. A user has more control over their own user space than over article talk space. If anyone else thinks that the material is inappropriate for user space, they can nominate the material for MFD. Userfication should be a satisfactory compromise that doesn't require a community decision.
    • 2. Z80Spectrum did say that they have evidence. That was not a hypothetical statement, but an allegation against someone. They should either present the evidence, or say that they were just talking wildly.
    • 3. Is there anything else?

    Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Z80Spectrum said they want the deleted material [...] restored and archived, or else. "Material" being his WP:OR. No thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dislike your comment, Paradoctor. I repeat, again, a quote from WP:OR: This policy does not apply to talk pages. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article talk pages exist to discuss changes to the corresponding article. "I dislike your comment" is an oddly (bizarrely, even!) confrontational way of putting things. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pt11. User:Robert McClenon said: You seem to be arguing with yourself ...
    Your argument depends at least on a presumption that the property of being ambiguous can only have a yes or no answer. I argue that there exist many intermediates, or degrees, of ambiguity. WP:TPO is not ambiguous to such a degree that absolutely no conclusion can be reached. I judge that, upon careful reading, WP:TPO supports my side of the argument to a level significantly higher than the case for deletion.
    I will skip the detailed justification of my previous sentence. Instead, I ask you this: can you quote a part of WP:TPO which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB? Such a quotation would be a good start of a fair discussion.
    On the other hand, you have stated at DRN : However, it is my opinion that the removal of material posted by another editor to an article talk page is only allowed under unusual circumstances, and those circumstances were not present. So the removal of the large amount of talk page material was an error. From my point of view, it appears that you are the one who is now arguing against own previous statements.
    Pt12. User:Robert McClenon said: You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored ... Actually, I believe you. In the vast majority of cases, bias is sub-conscious. Biased persons are usually not aware that they are biased. Or, perhaps you were not biased, and it was some other kind of a honest mistake. Still, that DRN case was unjust towards me, primarily because it should have been closed and moved to WP:ANI when I requested it.
    Pt13. User:Robert McClenon said: I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored [...]. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of User:Ritchie333. …
    I judge that as invalid. One thing has nothing to do with another. I see no valid logical connections between whether the content should be restored and what I said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .
    Pt14. User:Robert McClenon said: You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. …
    I have already apologized for that entire discussion on User:Ritchie333 talk page, three times: [154] [155] [156]. I now apologize for the fourth time. I would also like to point out that I ended that discussion with You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here.. That final post of mine was an attempt to cancel what I have said there. Obviously, it wasn't clear enough.
    This insistent objections concerning those few sentences on User:Ritchie333 talk page are getting in the way of a fair discussion. I have a feeling that you and User:Chaheel Riens are trying to scare me and silence me by quoting that discussion only when I try to argue for the restoration of the deleted material. I won't search now for evidence in support of that feeling of mine, but I will do it if the issue is brought up again.
    I repeat: I see no valid logical connections between restoration of the deleted material and what I have said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .
    Pt15. User:Robert McClenon said: If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. […] By "here", do you mean WP:ANI?
    Yes, I mean/meant you, User:Robert McClenon. I was replying to an answer of another editor who used the phrase "pick a fight" first. I re-used his phrase due to concerns of clarity. Yes, I meant WP:ANI.
    Pt16. User:Robert McClenon said: Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia.
    On WP:ANI, I have already provided an answer to your allusion.
    So, you claim that you were present on Wikipedia. Tell me, have you done something related to this dispute since February 21st? If you did, I'm still unaware of it. I was mostly absent, and I might have missed some important development, so I would like to get informed. Or, perhaps you did nothing since February 21st?
    -
    Answers to the three points titled "Starting Over ?":
    Pt21. (answer to 1.) The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified. Perhaps you are trying to say that the deleted material belongs better to my user space, but I don't think it does. The deleted material is strongly connected to the "ZX Spectrum graphics modes" article, where it should be discussed. The deleted material specifically discusses improvements only to that article, and also discusses and documents methods of generating images specifically for that article.
    I see no justification in the guidelines for your proposed compromise. Can you quote a part of WP:TPO that would support your proposal to move the disputed material to my user space?
    A rhetorical question: What would you say if I proposed that every comment you wrote on any talk page should be moved to your user space, as a compromise?
    I propose as an equally good "compromise" (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space.
    Pt22. (answer to 2.) When I said "I have evidence", I meant that User:4throck
    a) provided me with a link to an image hosted on a third-party website
    b) didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright.
    c) the image he previously uploaded to the Commons was modified in a strange way, which made me extremely suspicious
    Pt23. (answer to 3.) Yes, there is more. Given the totality of your objections and proposals in this discussion on WP:ANI so far, I would estimate that, generally speaking, you are not arguing properly. I ask for arguments and justifications of better quality. I especially dislike apparent constant attempts to blame me for as many things as possible, which then causes me to spend unnecessary time and space for rebuttals of each accusation (since I might be punished by WP:ANI for any single accusation of yours). To accusations, I might respond with counter-accusations, as I did. To valid arguments, I will respond with arguments.
    Please, if you want to improve the quality of this discussion, then try to provide a small number of well-thought out arguments, instead of a multitude of short, but easily rebutted arguments. You can start by answering the two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good Lord, this is becoming a veritable black hole waste of time. I didn't realise it was still ongoing, as my username was incorrectly spelled in some of the earlier pings, so I never received them. However, I'll make just a couple of observations and try to keep away in general:
    1. I propose as an equally good "compromise" (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space - that depends on whether the 26Kb in question has been challenged, and the reasons behind it. As this would obviously be a WP:POINTY edit, then you would most likely find your actions had consequences that you would undoubtedly feel were unfair. (Incidentally, you state that this is a rhetorical question, but also ask for it to be answered. It can't be both, but I chose the latter.)
    2. The issue here that you are still fixated on the talk page removal, and will not let it go - to the extent where everything else fades out and your position must be accepted. However, to every other editor this is no longer the case - even those who supported you at first. It's now turned into a primarily a conduct issue, albeit your conduct around the original issue (even if mine was questioned at the start) - yet you refuse to accept or take advice in that respect. Even back when DRN was first mooted I was prepared to accept the outcome regardless, and recognised that I've interacted with Robert before in passing - he's to be respected here. I tried to support you, I really did - when you first joined I left you a Welcome template on your talk page, and recognised that you were just venting with your userpage, voting to keep[157], but you make it a hard row, and I feel like it's against the current. You seem to be making it personal, and that's not a good place to edit from. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pt31. (answer to 1.) Perhaps I used a wrong word there (i.e. "ironically"). Precisely: that last "compromise" of mine should not be understood at face value. I also think that you didn't correctly identify the "two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted". It is likely a honest mistake on your part.
    Whether the disputed content should be moved to my user space is a question of justification and a question of consistence. A justification has to be found in the policies and guidelines. "Consistence" is about the usual and accepted ways to solve this kind of a dispute. It would be the best if both the justification and the "consistence" coincide into one and the same action.
    Pt32. (answer to 2.) I'll only let go if I'm provided with a valid justification (which can also be based on the concept of consistence, but such is a much more complex argument to make). "Advice" will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you can't convince other editors you're right, then you have to drop it. This is policy on Wikipedia. If you can't handle it, you're in the wrong place.
    WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making [...] Consensus on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity [...] nor is the result of a vote. Paradoctor (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't have to convince other editors. Conduct issues are decided by WP:ANI, and the deletion od 26 KB is a conduct issue. I'd like to hear the judgement of WP:ANI. I hope that it will be properly justified. Until then, I'll be posting my counter-arguments, in order to better inform the administrators at WP:ANI of my side of the argument. Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified. This seems quite a lot like a battleground mentality.
    ...didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright....which made me extremely suspicious. All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. Assuming good faith, however, is not optional. VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pt41. User:Vquakr said: All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. Assuming good faith, however, is not optional.
    OK. However, I argue that I had good reasons for being suspicious, due to the gravity (i.e. importance) of legal problems. I argue that I had the right to demand immediate clarification of the copyright problem, and that I had sufficient reasons for being suspicious. Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material. The issue of my conduct is a separate issue. I can't tell how much have I overstepped, as I am a newbie here. I have already agreed to accept the boomerang. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • can you quote a part of WP:TPO which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB?
    Can't speak for Robert, but I do.
    WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself
    Which OR always is, by definition.
    Which I told you more than five weeks ago, on your talk page. You have hearing issues. Paradoctor (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pt42. User:Paradoctor said: WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself
    I think this is a repetition of the discussion on my talk page, in which you participated. I'll reply the same as I did there, but shorter : The deleted discussion is not a discussion about article's subject (the subject are the graphics modes), but about article content (images in the article are content). Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a repetition Uh, I literally said so. Let me repeat another bit of yours from slightly further down: Frankly, I can't see your side of the argument at all.
    Me and everyone else. So, lots of not seeing on all sides. What are we to do? The fact is, for whatever reason, and whomever you wish to blame for that, you couldn't convince anyone to accept your position. Which means your position won't result in content.
    You dislike this, sure. I understand. But it is clear that further discussion will not lead to conversions. Attempting to continue the campaign will only waste the time of other editors. So, unless you wish to be sanctioned, it is time to drop it now. Remember what Obi Wan said to Anakin on Mustafar. Paradoctor (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what's the best way to say this, but I want to say to you that you are, by your nature, quite an amusing person. You make me smile. I would like that to be understood in a positive way. So, I can't say that I dislike your comment.
    That was a slight digression. On the serious side, your argument is just a version of a fallacy known as Argumentum ad populum. I would like to be given proper justifications, not fallacies. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, if you try to condescend to someone, at least make sure you're right. I never said consensus makes right. I said Wikipedia operates through consensus, and consensus is not with you here and now. Paradoctor (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to say that I accept only the original trilogy, so Obi Wan on Mustafar didn't happen. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And from WP:NOTFORUM: "Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... #4 Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia ... bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article"  // Timothy :: talk  18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Pt43. I have already discussed that in other forums. I argue that the deleted 26 KB is solely about improving the article. To verify it, you have to read the deleted 26 KB: this topic (at least the first post), and this part, which is about improving the "Colour palette" section of the article [158].
      Also, I would like to remind that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is your research: Let's compute this conversion of "theoretic" ZX Spectrum PAL colors into sRGB color space. They are "theoretic" because we are assuming the maximum possible saturation that a ZX Spectrum could possibly achieve on the PAL output. The real colors produced by a ZX Spectrum on the PAL output are probably less saturated. The real colors are currently unknown, and the only way to find them out is by an oscilloscope, via the UV voltages method (by measuring amplitude-phase shift of chroma sub-carrier).
      Where is the reliable source that says what you are saying there?
      What do you not understand about WP:V?
      content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. Paradoctor (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like to remind that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:OR does not apply to normal appropriate talk page discussions, this means discussing with reliable sources improvements to the article. This type of discussion is not original research. You however are not using the talk pages for discussion within these talk page guidelines, you are using talk pages to try and publish your own thoughts, this is original research and per WP:NOTFORUM is is not allowed.  // Timothy :: talk  02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, [WP:V], sorry, here you go: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, ... Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts, these cannot be WP:V and using talk pages to try and end run around WP:V won't work. I think this is why you are so desperate to have this content put back on a talk page instead of your userspace, you can't get your WP:OR in the article directly, so the talk page is the next choice.  // Timothy :: talk  02:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have replied below at the start of "Courtesy Break (1)". Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I'd like to clarify that I'm new to ANI, so forgive me if I miss any formalities. However, I wanted to chime in because like other editors here, I really don't see how this content dispute qualifies as a chronic, intractable problem. The dispute effectively amounts to a several month-old removal of talk page content, which has been dragged to death via various noticeboards. What exactly is the point of bringing this here? If it's content, this discussion does not belong here. I agree with the IP's suggestion for Z80Spectrum to withdraw this thread, before they continue to dig a hole for themselves, running the risk of potential sanctions. What I do find intractable, however, is Z80Spectrum's battleground mentality, which has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread, e.g users are trying to scare and silence me, (which is demonstrably false, since your own actions have led you to this point, not mine, nor anyone else's), and I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not. As @VQuakr succinctly put it, this isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. Irrespective of whether or not the removal was justified, I think Z80Spectrum needs to stop digging a hole for themselves. This really isn't a hill that one should die on. Bandit Heeler (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy Break (1)

    After an approx. 15 hours break, I would like to continue the argumentation here. I'll skip the replies to all the argument so far where I estimate that they are either obviously false, fallacious, off-topic, irrelevant, or without sufficient substance.

    As far as I can tell, that leaves only two posts unanswered, by User:TimothyBlue, where he talks about applicability of WP:OR and WP:V policies. User:TimothyBlue said: You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts ...

    My answer is as follows. Generally speaking, Wikipedia talk pages contain thoughts of users. I estimate that user's thoughts form over 50% of the total Wikipedia talk page material. Wikipedia does not require user's thoughts published on talk pages to be verifiable. Upon reading the WP:V policy, it can be easily noticed that it speaks primarily about article content, and not about talk page material.

    Additionally, most parts of the disputed 26 KiB material are actually easily verifiable. You just need to use a calculator, and you need some introductory knowledge in the topics covered.

    Similar reasoning applies with regards to WP:OR, which explicitly and clearly states: This policy does not apply to talk pages... . If Wikipedia was to apply WP:OR to content of talk pages, it would imply that all the talk page discussions have to be just slight re-interpretations of material already published somewhere else. That would further imply the need to put inline references into all sentences published on talk pages. So, it is not any kind of a wonder that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages.

    Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:PLAYPOLICY  // Timothy :: talk  19:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a right to state that opinion of yours. I argue that it is an undoubtable and obvious intention of WP:OR and WP:V to be applicable only to mainspace (i.e. to articles, and not to talk pages). Therefore, I'm not gaming the use of policies and guidelines. Instead, I'm providing a very obvious interpretation of WP:OR and WP:V. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban

    Given the above lengthy comment, which dismisses concerns as easily rebutted arguments and that users are trying to scare me and silence me, I can see no option besides the following:

    @HandThatFeeds: their area of interest/expertise is clearly linked to that subject area given their user name and editing history; topic banning them from that area rather than addressing the behavioral issues seems like an indef block by another name, and if they started editing in another area with the same behavior the same issues would arise. Put another way, this boils down to battleground mentality not the subject area so I don't think a topic ban is the right tool. As an alternative: what about a ban from arguing against or uncollapsing off-topic talk page posts, with a warning that future forum-like posts, synthetic talk page posts, or battleground behavior will likely result in a block? VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Z80Spectrum seems to have an interest in technology in general - a look at their contributions so far (once the talk page and ANI chaff is filtered out) shows a fairly wide breadth of computer related interests. A topic ban here would not restrict them as much as a block, indef or not. Additionally, they have made constructive edits to the ZX Spectrum article - here and here for example. I think a topic ban would work for just the ZX Spectrum graphic modes article & talk page. Not being a mop-holder, I'm also unaware, but I do - best will in the world - think that some kind of attitude warning or restriction based on the WP:STICK and battleground mentality is in order. As an involved (!) party, I'm not sure how much weight my observations carry though. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef block - Changed my mind based on this comment in Pt32. (answer to 2.): "Advice" will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Although it's abundantly clear he has no intention of stopping, this is where he categorically states and admits it. He's not going to stop and will keep filibustering until somebody stops him instead. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    15 years, 37,619 edits, carries a bit of weight.  // Timothy :: talk  22:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a behavioral topic ban will suit, because that's just too vague to enforce. Either an article topic ban, or a CIR block, are the only solutions I can think of to end this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: They really have left everyone with few options. I suppose this comes down to how much more time needs to be wasted? Based on this I think the underlying problem will resurface in a different form. After looking at their userpage, I think they want to be blocked to prove what they think is a point. Wikipedia has flaws large and small, but their userpage rant is even more unhinged than this discussion. However the tban is crafted, it needs to be crystal clear that if the problem repeats a block will be fast in coming.  // Timothy :: talk  22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban for ZX Spectrum graphic modes. I think the crux is that this is about something they put a lot of work in, and the rejection of their work has them running a lot hotter than their usual self. Let's not forget they are new here. If I'm wrong, we'll learn soon enough, but I'm willing to give them a chance to cool down.
      Block indef Reassessed.
      Site ban, but will accept an indef block. I have begun to see the wisdom in Remsense's words below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) ; edited 02:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC); edited 10:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      However it turns out, I would like to say that I mostly enjoyed conversations with you. I'm saying this just in case that I'm banned and therefore unable to say it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban or just block indef. Based on the comment in this discussion: "Advice" will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. - it is obvious that some sort of sanction will be required. - MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef block: They just replied above (see [159]). They made it clear they have no intention of stopping.  // Timothy :: talk  00:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any topic ban from article space. The conduct issue here is the editor's filibustering in project space about an article talk page. I am not stating a position for or against an indefinite block or site ban, but those are not what is being considered here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef block even now, with this discussion open, they just can't help themselves. Hopeless case of WP:BATTLE. VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef - Given the new rants and declaration they will not stop until a "justification" which satisfies them is presented, I'm striking my topic ban suggestion and supporting an indef block. User is WP:NOTHERE to collaboratively edit. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a Site Ban after the subject editor wrote: "Advice" will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me., since it is also apparent that they want to decide what is a "proper justification". That insistence may be good mathematical logic, but it is not collaborative work in an electronic office. They threw a boomerang at a kangaroo that wasn't there. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban – In the course of human events, sometimes words simply fail. Here, they likely failed months ago. Z80 has been given months more time to adjust their behavior than I had initially expected—time during which they have been consistently afforded a wide variety of patient advice from fellow editors. At several points, it seemed to me that there may have been some getting through to them. Unfortunately, that no longer seems plausible. Beyond a very shallow threshold, Z80 is completely unreceptive to other editors' perspectives. This threshold is unacceptably shallow for Wikipedia. Remsense诉 07:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of deception

    Just a heads up that Z80Spectrum is still engaging in battleground mentality, albeit on a much more low-key level over at the Talk:ZX Spectrum page, where everybody who he disagrees with is being deceptive - although it's probably an honest mistake, so he'll forgive them: (paraphrase, but also my sarcasm)

    • I also estimate that I have been deceived by Paradoctor's and VQuakr's interpretation of the situation so far, but it was probably an honest mistake on their part, so at this moment I'm willing to just forget it
    • This is Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...
    • This is another Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...
    • This is the VQuakr 's statement that I find slightly deceptive...

    ending with:

    • As I have said, I still consider those to be honest mistakes, provided in good faith

    The last three (and honest mistake statement) were made directly after both Paradoctor and I asked him to stop making such comments - as Paradoctor said (I had a brain-freeze and couldn't think of the term!) they are at best condescending, and at worst insulting. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I think at this point an admin really needs to take action here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaheel Riens's comment is a relatively accurate description of an issue that happened in this very recent discussion [160]. Therefore I don't have much to add there. I think that the linked discussion is quite illustrative, and I think that it speaks for itself. So I don't need to say anything additional, except my advice to read the discussion from the start to the end.
    I would like to correct myself regarding another issue here. In my reply numbered "Pt2.", I said No, it was not my fault. Reading it again, I think that the closure of the case at DRN might have been my fault, since my replies at User:Ritchie333's page do connect the DRN case with the copyright case. I must admit that, by the time I have posted on User:Ritchie333's page, I have probably already lost my faith in the DRN case and that I thought DRN has little chance of settling the issue. I think, as I always did, that User:Robert McClenon's decision to close the DRN case at that time was a correct decision. Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have another correction (clarification) of another sentence of mine. In Pt41. (semicolon instead of the full-stop):
    "Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material ; the issue of my conduct is a separate issue."
    I.e. the issue of my conduct is an issue separate from the issue of the 26 KB disputed material.
    Also, previously in this discussion I used the word "ironically" instead of "sarcastically" (I guess). Also, I used the word "consistence" instead of the word "uniformity". Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is battleground mentality and the inability of this editor to drop any WP:STICK, ever. I think the specific concern about the connotations of the word "deception" are less concerning given that English isn't the user's first language, but that's just my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to directly respond to VQuakr's accusation. Besides, I'm a newbie here, and I don't really know what are the accepted interpretations of Wikipedia policies. So I'll leave the judgement to others.
    Related, I would like to point out a policy of WP:HARASS, which contains a section WP:HOUND. I have no idea whether that policy applies, and what is the accepted interpretation of that policy. I'll be leaving it to others to think about it, and to respond if they think it is appropriate. Similarly, there is a guideline WP:CANVASS, which might, or might not, apply in this dispute at WP:ANI. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor named User:CodeTalker has just replied in the mentioned discussion [161]. I don't know whether that editor is an administrator here, and whether his answers are an official opinion from WP:ANI, or his own opinions. To be safe, at this moment I will refrain from any actions. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z80Spectrum: Administrators are not authorities that rule by decree. They are editors with extra buttons to allow technical actions. Whether they are an admin or not should have zero bearing on whether you WP:LISTEN to them. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just figured out that better words for "deceived" and "deceptive" would have been "mislead" and "misleading". So, I appologize for that mistake. I can correct myself, by strike-outs, on the "ZX Spectrum" talk page, if the offended editors agree. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deceive" and "mislead" have the same negative connotations. There is no practical difference between them in this context. VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I would also like to suggest "misguide", "misinform" and "misrepresent" as acceptable alternatives. If, at any later time you would like me to change it, just notify me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of which are synonyms. You appear unable or unwilling not to misjudge other editors. This given that your accusations have been refuted. Those against me by myself, and the one against VQakr by CodeTalker. What you should have done was to either concede your error, or offer an effective rebuttal. What we're getting instead is a concession that is not conceding anything. Paradoctor (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to make sure that I didn't use a word with an incorrect meaning. I was uncertain, that's all. Z80Spectrum (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    🤦 Paradoctor (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom? Probably not now

    There is a Request for Arbitration currently open before ArbCom that is similar to this dispute, in that it is about the deletion of questionable material from article talk pages. The filing party was in the habit of restoring talk page posts by IP addresses that were deleted by other editors. The filing party was then blocked for seven days for disruptive editing for restoring the IP posts. Having come off block, they are asking for ArbCom action. Their request is unlikely to be accepted, because several arbitrators have already voted to Decline. However, I have made a statement saying that both cases, this case and the RFAR, illustrate that a poorly written and ambiguous guideline is problematic. I don't think that ArbCom considers poorly written policies to be within their scope, but have said that some sort of statement about the guideline would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely not. The way it looks to me FTM, there is consensus for an indef block, at a minimum. As regards our guidelines, they are all badly written, and ambiguities are unavoidable, given WP:5P5. Z80Spectrum's issues are not caused by that. Paradoctor (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Paradoctor - I respectfully partly disagree. The original dispute, which I tried to mediate, was largely the result of an ambiguous guideline, which can be reasonably read either as saying that deletion is the most appropriate option for questionable talk page material, or that collapsing or archival are preferred. I think it should be clarified, in particular with regard to disputes over the deletion and restoration of material. Disputes over the deletion and restoration of material were both the original issue with Z80Spectrum, and the issue in the RFAR. The fact that there are two such disputes active at this time illustrates that the guideline is unclear. I agree that Z80Spectrum's current problem is mostly self-inflicted, the result of their stubbornness. There is a problematic guideline, and there is consensus for an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a separate topic. Sure, you can submit an ArbCom case about it if you'd like (I doubt they'll accept), but that doesn't preclude dealing with Z80's behavior here and now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:HandThatFeeds - Maybe I wasn't clear. An ArbCom case has already been submitted by another editor who was blocked for a week for disruptive editing for restoring off-topic IP posts. I have commented. It appears that ArbCom is in the process of declining that case. I have made a statement, but don't expect that ArbCom will hear the case. I have also provided my opinion here about the conduct of Z80. I think that the guideline should be revised, but I also think that we have enough evidence in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I wasn't aware of said ArbCom case. Thanks for the clarification. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fred Zepelin

    I am asking for User:Fred Zepelin to be indefinitely blocked from posting to my personal talk page, and for an administrator to consider appropriate action in response to his hounding and ongoing personal attacks.

    During a recent content dispute, he accused me of “whitewashing” and being a “white supremacist apologist”.[162] The two other editors involved in the discussion suggested he “focus on content, not contributors” and “clear the slate with a strike and or apology”.[163]

    Instead, he followed me to another article where his first-ever edit there was to revert my content and source[164] and template-warned me inappropriately.[165]

    I have asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my talk page[166], citing WP:USERTALKSTOP[167] and telling him that I would view future violations as harassment. [168] But days later he again posted there again, and with another personal attack.[169] BBQboffin (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Which they immediately reverted and apologized for (and was in regards to what was not a PA at all). What are you asking us to do if the other user already self-resolved it? Nate • (chatter) 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Immediately reverted - yes. Apologized for casting aspersions about alleged "whitewashing" - no. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what is being asked for, then? The editor immediately reverted so there's nothing to revert, though it looks like the two have had a running content dispute for the last month but not to a block-worthy extent. I just can't stand when the reporter leaves out something on purpose (the reversion) to try to have an action done, without the other in the dispute being able to respond. Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I forgot" is neither an excuse for harassment nor is it an apology. Posting "Knock off the whitewashing" and then reverting is like someone throwing a punch and pulling it back at the last minute. It doesn't "self-resolve" a situation; it has an intimidating effect. And this isn't the first time FZ has done this: he had been warned about respecting WP:USERTALKSTOP with another editor[170], ignored the warning, and got himself a 48-hour block[171]. What I want is for him to just stop posting to my talk page: if he can't be banned from posting there permanently, maybe a 72-hour block would help him remember next time that harassment (of me or anyone else) is not OK. BBQboffingrill me 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summary on their self-revert, "forgot, this particular user asked that I not post on thier talk page," gives me faith they'll stop posting there. Do you agree but still think they need to be blocked, or do you think if they're not blocked they'll continue messaging you there? City of Silver 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can’t know if he's going to forget again. A talk page block would make it 100% certain. BBQboffingrill me 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but that wasn't what I asked. And they're not going to be blocked from your talk page because it's possible they'll have messages they're required by policy to leave for you. City of Silver 02:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In lieu of a talk page block I would accept a promise from FZ not to post on my talk page anything beyond required-by-policy messages. BBQboffingrill me 04:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been four days and they haven't posted since you took them to ANI, which is not a result I want for anyone as "chilling" an editor from posting again is a major reason we discourage ANI reports of this kind if an issue is easily solvable by using a talk page to discuss editing concerns. We're certainly not going to take action on the above because of that, and I truly hope you didn't needlessly scare a productive editor away because of this overreaction to an honest mistake. But in the reverse, Fred had been warned to step back from editing on a particular article on their talk page, so we're not going to warn someone either from taking a break and pausing editing, then coming back a better editor if they do so. Nate • (chatter) 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fred did return and going by their response, they felt this ANI thread was completely frivolous (but put it more profanely) and resumed editing elsewhere. Next time, use the user talk page first before going to ANI, because nothing is happening here. He's done with you, be done with him, and move on, BBQ. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, next time I'll use the user talk page more than I did, but I don't think this is an "easily solvable" issue. I will move on, although on his first day back I see another editor has already become exasperated with Fred and asked him not to post to their talk page[1]. Fred certainly has value to the project for his tenacity and skill in ferreting out sockpuppets and their ilk, but it would be nice if he would show mutual respect to his fellow editors. BBQboffingrill me 06:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TonyTheTiger is gaming the WikiCup through GAN spam

    Over the course of a few days, TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) has increased the number of articles he had pending at GAN from a handful to nearly 70. When asked about it by Ganesha811, TonyTheTiger basically admitted to gaming the system to score WikiCup points, saying that he'd only be willing to withdraw if another backlog drive was guaranteed to him later in the year (at which point he hoped to have date priority on nominations). Such a huge strain on the process might be understandable if his submissions were all carefully scrutinized, but the only charitable explanation is that they clearly were not. 25 of his submissions have been quickfailed by 13 separate reviewers (myself included) on several grounds, including poor sourcing, unsourced sections, poor prose, unhandled maintenance tags, lack of substantive contribution, and lack of breadth. On multiple occasions, after an article was failed, he lashed out at the reviewer before renominating the article with little substantive change. Premeditated Chaos rightly pointed out that this was a pretty clear abuse of the GAN process, Epicgenius (who is a WikiCup judge this year) warned him that his conduct could be seen as gaming, and AirshipJungleman29 noted that he was TBANed from Featured sounds back in 2011 for this exact pattern of conduct.

    His behavior pretty much only gets worse from there. If you look at one of his renomination attempts, you'll see that TonyTheTiger, who has been editing since 2006 – rather than choosing to respond to any of the admins, backlog drive coordinators, or other senior editors who had raised concerns about his conduct on his talk page in the past day – chose to go after Generalissima, a relatively new editor on the scene, telling her, "You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know." He then told everyone else to Calm down and stop quickfailing stuff for no reason... If you fail a 20-25% [sic] of my articles that does not make me a problem editor. He told another quickfailing reviewer, Teratix, I assume you are lieing [sic] to pick a fight. He has now claimed in multiple places that a vague group of "vindictive" editors are conspiring to fail his articles for WikiCup points, claiming that articles like his get through GAN in good shape all the time. If he's right, I worry. In the meantime, multiple editors have asked him to find and withdraw his poorer-quality nominations, and he has refused, while continuing to making spurious renominations. This is clearly disruptive behavior that needs to be addressed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed sanctions

    This is really disappointing, because many of his past FAs and GAs are high quality. His FT on the Four Freedoms by Rockwell is great work! Why he has decided to take such a big step down with his quality control in favor of mass-nomination of Start/C-class articles is beyond me; the only way many of these articles would get through GAN is if either a newbie reviewer picks them up without fully understanding the GA criteria, or if a reviewer painstakingly holds his hand the entire way from start class up to meeting the criteria.
    I feel a fair response to this would involve suspension from this year's Wikicup for openly trying to game the system, alongside a tight restriction to how many GANs he can have at once, to prevent this sort of waste of reviewers' time in the future. Maybe just one GAN at a time to start out with? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    given his past pattern of similar behavior, including disruption at FAC & DYK, i worry that this kind of thing will just continue in another area of the project. sawyer * he/they * talk 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is fair enough. I would absolutely support a topic ban from Wikicup, as I feel this is the primary cause for his behavior. However, a topic ban from GAN should be instituted if this sort of abuse continues outside of the cup. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon all the new evidence being brought forward of his consistent behavior in this respect, mark me down as in favor of a TB from GAN/DYK too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A look back to this very noticeboard in 2011: Tony is topic banned from a) participating in the Featured Sounds process and from b) uploading pictures relating to himself (this is as absurd as it sounds, so let's ignore it). Why was he TBANned from FS? Well:
      • TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured...He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego...TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds
      • Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago...He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating)
      • TonyTheTiger seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself...he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived...I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area
      • I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others "liars", and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page.
    • Move on 13 years, and Tony is again nominating anything that he thinks will have a remote chance of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back and immediately renominating unsuccessful nominations, clogging GAN with items that don't deserve to be GAs, disrespecting every other editor involved in the Cup and GAN, and calling other editors "liars" while facing unanimous disagreement, all to feed his ego. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, I support a TBAN from the Cup and nomination restrictions at GAN; hopefully that ends the disruption. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note: Tony *has* withdrawn a few of his nominations since the debacle started (Benji (2012 film), Essex on the Park, NEMA (Chicago) and The Flick). Everything else in your comment is spot on. – Hilst [talk] 22:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed. I think offensive linemen Michael Schofield (American football) and Heath Irwin compare well with my current GA for Patrick Omameh. At Talk:1000M/GA1, I responded completely to the review before renominating. It was not until after a second fail when reviewers explained what the issues were. Had I understood these were the issues, I would have addressed them. Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems. To people who review in any of certain fields the flaws may seem obtuse, but I did not look at the articles and realise the flaws and then nominate them. The reviews are informative to me. I don't understand why "Humble and Kind" is not regarded as in the general quality range of my 2022 GA "Sheesh!" except for a tag. I am finding the reviewer responses confusing. I have started removing some of my nominations that I are further afield from my expertises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Tony, if you are so flabbergasted by the reviews you're getting, then that is more indicative of you not reading them than it is an indictment of over a dozen other editors' feedback. Anyways, this is not a place to air your grievances about the quality of the reviews you're receiving, this is a discussion about your behavior. sawyer * he/they * talk 23:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Noting I have nominated Omameh for GA reassessment, as it clearly does not meet the GAC in its current state. – Teratix ₵ 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is clear that the WikiCup is not good for TonyTheTiger (it is supposed to be a fun competition, but he seems to think it is something he needs to win) and TonyTheTiger is not good for the WikiCup (as a fun game, it really should not take such a heavy toll on the GAN backlog; abusing the general community like this endangers the Cup). A topic ban from the WikiCup is the minimum that should happen (full disclosure: this would slightly benefit me, as I am also a competitor in the Cup). However, there are wider WP:IDHT and almost WP:CIR issues related to WP:GAN: TTT has nominated (and sometimes renominated directly after a quickfail) several articles that he last edited years ago, and some of them are significantly out of date, have maintenance tags or other obvious issues (I re-quickfailed one of them, 1000M). So a topic ban from GAN should be at least considered. —Kusma (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mark me down in favor of a topic ban from GAN entirely, given the continued IDHT and inability to take any accountability for his actions, and repeated poor attitude towards other editors. It's clear Tony will not stop this behavior unless he is forced to. The past behavioral issues put me more firmly in support of a restriction. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • for the record, i also support a topic ban from both GAN and the WikiCup. the above-mentioned behavior is entirely disruptive, rude, and a waste of our time. the GAN process and the WikiCup do not exist to serve TTT's ego. i concur with Kusma about the IDHT & potential-CIR issues; how anyone could read Humble and Kind (for example) and think it's even slightly close to GA quality is beyond me. patience has run dry.
      edit: as other people have also mentioned they're competing in the Cup, i'll disclose that i am as well. sawyer * he/they * talk 23:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, without an explanation, I don't understand why (other than one tag) "Humble and Kind" is worse than "Sheesh!". I believe the majority of my recent nominations were in the range of proximity to WP:WIAGA to be reasonable nominations. After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general. I feel that the intersection of the GA and the CUP is the issue. I do feel I could work productively at GA without the competitive element of the CUP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general. Doug Coldwell also used his number of GAs to justify his poor behavior and shoddy work... and look where that got him. sawyer * he/they * talk 23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It didn't take long to find a half-dozen reliable sources covering the song's production, some in great detail, that just aren't being used. Even the CMT piece has a lot of untapped material. The fact that I can find this many sources for one section of the article reflects poorly on the rest. To put it bluntly, "Sheesh!" covers all the major aspects of its topic, "Humble and Kind" does not. An editor as experienced as you should realize this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • addendum, after reading others' comments: i don't think a time-based restriction will work. his history of disruption goes all the way back to 2011. while i support a full TBAN from GAN (and certainly from the Cup), i would also be supportive of a strict limit on how many GANs he can make at a time, should a full TBAN not gain consensus here. i think his entitled attitude is the single biggest problem here, as PMC pointed out below. i don't see why we have to give him so much more leeway than he has given his fellow editors. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony, would you be willing to go through all your pending GA noms and withdraw all except those of exceptional quality (or just all). Its looking like you could be heading for a GA topic ban, something I'd think would be a shame since you seem to have a great record of producing good content. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban from GAN and the WikiCup, with regret. TonyTheTiger has continued (re)nominating articles with issues today, well after many editors have expressed both general and specific feedback about the inappropriateness of his mass nominations. His reaction to this feedback has been to deny or underplay issues and shows a lack of regard for other editors' time and the research required for ensuring his nominations are broad in their coverage (#3). Overall, his recent activity has been detrimental to the processes and to the task of building a high-quality encyclopedia. — Bilorv (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No ban on anything, Wikipedia eating its own? Assume good faith is a thing. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      with all due respect, did you read the thread? every avenue has been tried before ANI - his talk page, the WikiCup talk page, Teratix' talk page, the GAN drive talk page, and numerous individual reviews. he has been uncivil, refused to listen, and continued to engage in the same disruptive behavior after over a dozen editors, including multiple admins, have asked him to stop. sawyer * he/they * talk 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I read the thread before responding. Have now read Tony's talk page, and there seems a mix of failed and under review Good articles. He now is pulling some back, as mentioned above. My comment was only about jumping from concerns to banning TtT from GAN, where he has excelled for years. Wikipedia eating its own is a thing, as seen many times on this page when that kind of jump is made from discussion to "Get 'em!". But good faith is one of the best things, so let's use that one instead. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Tony has not assumed good faith of those who have reviewed his articles. he said to Generalissima "You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know." he claimed "There is an overzealous posse of editors quickfailing my articles." at the Cup talk page. he accused Teratix of "lieing to pick a fight." i could go on; what else is there to do at this point? sawyer * he/they * talk 01:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic bans from GAN and the WikiCup (disclosure: I'm technically still a contestant in the Cup but I have no hope of progressing to the next round). There are seven distinct grounds:
    1. Mass-nominating GANs to an extent that would be absurd and disrespectful of volunteers' time even if all nominations were impeccable.
    2. Mass-nominating GANs with especially obvious, gaping flaws, indicating Tony either does not read the articles he is nominating or fails to understand the GAC. Talk:1000M/GA1 is a representative example (where Tony either didn't notice or didn't care about an entirely promotional and unsourced section) but I recommend reading his other quickfailed articles for the full perspective.
    3. Renominating GANs after quickfails without fixing the article's problems. See Talk:1000M/GA2, Talk:Kenny Demens/GA2, etc.
    4. Openly admitting this behaviour is motivated by tactical concerns related to his WikiCup performance. See User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations
    5. Displaying an appalling attitude towards how the GAN process runs, believing the project should bend over backwards to schedule backlog drives and grant special exemptions from date priority for his benefit. Read his replies to Ganesha811 on User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations. I have never seen more entitled behaviour.
    6. Behaving uncivilly towards reviewers and critics. See Thebiguglyalien's summary, I'm by no means sure this is comprehensive.
    7. Not recognising and in many cases doubling down on this bad behaviour.
    • To be clear, I see the GAN and WikiCup bans as inseparable – neither sanction on its own would adequately address these problems. – Teratix ₵ 02:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony's behaviour has been appalling enough already but I want to add an eighth ground – openly admitting "I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems". Or, in other words, "I nominate articles in areas where I know I cannot competently assess whether they have issues and rely on volunteer reviewers to inform me of obvious inadequacies". – Teratix ₵ 02:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support GAN nomination ban, temporary or indef (edit: or a wider ban that includes GAN) GAN reviewers' time is precious. Wasting it is disruptive. (t · c) buidhe 02:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from GAN and WikiCup. Buidhe and Teratix have both put it very well. Frankly at this point I'm inclined to support a block. This is not the first time Tony has gamed Wikipedia processes for his own arbitrary personal goals, but it is the first time he's been quite so nakedly honest about what he's doing. No one who would make a statement like I am willing to stop nominating new articles until April 1 if you can promise that there will be another backlog drive in October is operating in good faith. That's right everyone, if we can promise Tony that we'll organize an entire backlog drive on his schedule, he'll stop mass-nominating garbage. For now. Oh, how kind of him! The level of entitlement he feels to other peoples' effort so that he can have points for a game fucking boils my blood. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, I'm fine with a limited TBAN from GAN (ie X number of noms at once, or for X number of months, or whatever). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's rightly been a lot of outrage about Tony's abuse of process, both here and elsewhere. Surely a GAN/WC ban is an inadequate response to a very serious conduct issue? Tony's behaviour is a very clear case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT. His abuse of process is borderline vandalistic and certainly disruptive edit-warring. His personal attacks on other editors have been unwarranted and severe. He seems to have no intention of changing his behaviour and continues to persevere with a perverse victim mentality. Other editors have been blocked for less. I don't understand why editors in this discussion are not considering a harsher response. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Project block, minimum one month, preferably indefinite. Per my comment above. Editors in this discussion are far to eager to excuse serious, sustained, and deliberate misconduct from an editor with an obvious NOTHERE attitude who really ought to know better. If unblocked, permanent ban from WC, GAN, FAC, and DYK. All the red flags have been there for years now. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tony hasn't got the message – he's written a reply apologising for his abuse of process, but not for his abuse of other editors. I do not believe that his misconduct towards other volunteer members of the project have been properly addressed, either by other editors here or by Tony himself. As such I continue to support a minimum one month block from the enwiki project, just to make sure the message finally gets through that this behaviour will not be tolerated, even from people who have produced good content in the past. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can anyone show that Tony is like this when not participating in the WikiCup? I don't understand how AirshipJungleman29 has turned up quotes from 13 years ago that basically could have been written yesterday. Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years? Is this a case of someone losing their senses specifically because of the WikiCup competition and otherwise being mostly normal? What is even going on here? -- asilvering (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years? No, there was also a debacle last August when he tried to make a special date request for his sister's article (that he wrote) to appear on DYK on her birthday. Discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#COI issue at Carla Vernón. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is just bizarre. He did not see to understand why we don't do any of that, including pictures of himself. Secretlondon (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Asilvering: I can say that I think Tony bludgeoning the process isn't limited to the Cup or GAN. My first interactions with him were on the vital articles project, where my impression of him quickly became that he would relentlessly badger anybody (and sometimes everybody) that disagreed with one of his proposals. I don't have the energy to revisit all of it, as this was a big reason why I left the VA project, but I recall one particularly bad thread in which he (in the words of The Blue Rider) "[came] after everyone who hasn't supported his proposals enough times". In this same thread, I also expressed discomfort over what I felt were some very inappropriate remarks about a woman athlete, which he doubled down on. In an earlier thread, only a few days before this, Tony opened a comment saying "Forgive me if it seems I am badgering the voters, which does not seem to be something that we do here" before going on to badger the two users that opposed his proposal.
      I'm not going to comment one what I believe should be done, as I'm not an admin so I don't think this is my place, I'm just recounting some of my past experiences with him. -- Grnrchst (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Grnrchst it now looks like it isn't limited to bludgeoning, either. The bottom of this thread is in conspiracy theory territory. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup – Before continuing, I will disclose that I am also a contestant of the WikiCup like others have listed above, so therefore something like this would effect me. At first glance, I didn't think these mass nominations were that bad, many editors keep a backlog on a backburner. I didn't think it was much of an issue until realizing the quality of them and noticing TTT's behavior beyond this. I view the comments he made towards Generalissima and other editors, as well as the ones he has used to defend himself or make demands (ex. demanding a backlog drive) as unacceptable. I simply can not understand how any editor with good intentions can blatantly attack other users over a game. Hell, knowing his previous topic bans for similar reasons, this is something where the punishment could go beyond a topic ban, and if this discussion escalated to that I'd support that such action be taken. Absolutely egregious. λ NegativeMP1 03:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from GAN and Wikicup, at the very least: I was there for the featured sound debacle and well remember it. This is just history repeating again. I'd also support anything from a ban from all article nomination processes up to a block of any length, including indefinite. Enough is enough. Graham87 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose an outright GAN TBAN. While The Tiger's recent acting is...erm...concerning, to say the least, we should not ignore his previous great work, including a bazillion actually good GAs, and an outright TBAN is too much over a single incident with an otherwise constructive editor. I don't have the energy to workshop it, but I would support a proposal that limits how many GANs he can submit per day/week/month and/or a limit on how fast he can renominate GANs. No opinion on a WC TBAN; for disclosure's sake, I participated in round 1 of the cup, but was eliminated. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 04:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be willing to drop down to just a tban from the cup if Tony would actually take responsibility and agree to only nominate a few articles at a time, articles which he has actually put serious work into (and I think we all know he is perfectly capable of writing quite good articles when he puts his mind to it). But I have not seen that just far, only demands for us to bend our backs for him because he feels entitled to spam half-baked nominations for the sake of a contest where the prize for winning is nothing more than bragging rights. He has yet to even show he understands why his nominations are being failed despite the reviewers offering clear reasons and actionable feedback. Bottom line, Tony did this to himself despite being given multiple opportunities to self-correct and avoid any sanctions. I don't take any pleasure in supporting a TBAN from creating quality content, but this has gone well past the line of acceptable behavior. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TBAN from GAN, but like queen of 🖤, I would also support an alternate proposal for some limitations on how many he can submit in a given time frame. This thread has only been open for a few hours, and going from zero to sixty seems kind of extreme in my view. No opinion on WikiCup. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • support CUP tban . If User:TonyTheTiger apologises for lashing out at reviewers, I think a cap of 1 open nomination at GAN may work. TTT has engaged well with the process in the past, and if seems the intersection between the competition and the uneven GAN process is driving his behaviour. Without recognition that his behaviour towards reviewers was unacceptable, I do not have trust in TTT engaging with the process. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm also happy to support Schrocats suggestion below, except for the fact that I would like to put the max 5 nominations as part of the restriction to give clarity to TTT. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Five nominations sounds too many. I think stick to your suggestion of 1. This isn't just about flooding GAN, it's the personal attacks that have come with it. Editors have a right not to face that kind of chilling behaviour. Tony will be lucky to escape a GAN outright ban here so allowing one at a time seems reasonable to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right, I was too hasty: any rope here should be accompanied by TTT showing they understand why their behaviour was unacceptable. A cap of up to 3 would still seem reasonable to me after a 3-month ban, 5 indeed stretches it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What about a limit of 1 to start with, and if those have a decent 75% rate of passing after [some unit of time] it could maybe creep up to 3. That’s just my idea reading this, let me know if this makes no sense. Geardona (talk to me?) 10:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      75% is quite a low pass rate. I expect a near 100% pass rate for experienced nominators. Otherwise, this makes sense. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's one thing to have a pass rate of less than 100% (though I'd be embarrassed if my pass rate dropped below near 100%, personally). It is another entirely to have nominations so poor they are being routinely quickfailed. We are dealing with the latter here. I would support Femke's proposal if Tony would take feedback seriously, but thus far he has refused to do so, leaving us with only sanctions as an option to change his behavior. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN. The cup seems to be the driver for the disruption, so ban from that. GAN is where the disruption is taking place, so a more limited ban from that (on condition that all nominations are withdrawn). There’s no point in pushing a harder ban that’s harms the encyclopaedia and punishes TTT after the cause of the disruption has been sorted. He has three months to be able to work on whatever he wants, but a similar mass nomination at GAN (more than five articles in the process at any one time), should be a trigger for further time out off the process. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN per SchroCat. Let's keep remedies simple. I want to address the question of good faith. It's an inevitable feature of the discussions around erring senior editors that we must assume the good faith of an editor who has declined to do the same in return. Good faith really has nothing to do with it. Tony's behavior is disruptive regardless of his intentions. The question is whether Tony is prepared to acknowledge that other editors have a problem with his conduct and change his behavior. That's your standard feedback cycle. Editors get shown the door when they can't or won't change. Mackensen (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from the cup and remove all his current nominations. Tony knows perfectly well how to nominate good quality articles at GAN; if he continues to nominate clearly unready articles that's a problem we can address then, perhaps with a short GAN ban, but I see no reason why he would without the cup as motivation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a narrative emerging among a couple of editors' comments here along the lines of "Tony is basically competent to submit GANs but in this case he went too far because he was competing in the WikiCup". I want to push back on that a little and draw these editors' attention specifically to Tony's comment earlier in this thread, where he says Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed. That is, he looks at a review like Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1, and actually can't understand what the problem with the article is. And that's in an area he claims to be comfortable editing in.
      When it comes to areas he describes as outside his expertise, it gets worse: Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems. That is, he nominates articles to GAN, outside his experience, knowing he lacks the ability to tell whether the articles contain basic deficiencies or not, and uses volunteer reviewers as a crutch to paper over the gaps.
      I understand these sort of discussions balloon very rapidly, and there are a lot of comments to read through. But if your position is "support an indefinite Cup ban but more hesitant on an indefinite GAN ban", Tony's comment here should be ringing alarm bells. It speaks not just to a specific incompetence to edit under competitive pressure, but a more fundamental lack of understanding about GAN. It has definitely pushed me to favour an indefinite ban from GAN over a time-limited ban or restrictions on the number of simultaneous nominations. – Teratix ₵ 11:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      i'm inclined to agree with this, unfortunate as it is. an indefinite ban is not necessarily permanent, and if Tony can demonstrate that he can once again produce quality work, i see no reason why he couldn't be unbanned. i do think that the Cup is the inciting factor here, but Teratix is right that he seems to not understand GAN itself, which is very strange. yeah upon further thought now that i'm more awake, one really can't have gotten multiple FAs and not understand GAN ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I disagree here. If somebody has multiple FAs, they know full well what to do for a GA, but choose not to, and perhaps overplay ignorance as an excuse not to prepare their nominations sufficiently, or an unwillingness to take the time to take in reviewers comments. I think the issue is primarily behavioural, rather than competence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree that seeing this as a competence issue makes no sense, and it's strange that Tony appears to be trying to spin it as one. Someone who keeps a writing habit doesn't just spontaneously forget how to write, barring literal brain damage. Something else is obviously going on. -- asilvering (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      good point. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Femke, you may be interested in reading Gog the Mild's comments on his behaviour at FAC – he hasn't had an article promoted in ten years and his last ten nominations have been archived without success. I'm speculating here, but it could be a case of the project's standard for quality content advancing over time while Tony's writing standard remains the same, resulting in a misperception of what's required. It is difficult for me to explain Tony's comments here as merely the product of Cup pressure. – Teratix ₵ 01:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Teratix, you're right that Tony has engaged in problematic behaviour at GAN, but I think it's clear that the current issue is related to the WikiCup, and since there is ample evidence that he does know how to write good articles, I think we ought to limit the response here. This thread is already giving him ample warning about future GA nominations. I don't think more is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Tony's longer statements have slightly changed my view. My speculation on a mismatch between Tony's and GAN's writing standards was wrong, he is still capable of submitting GANs of acceptable quality in some cases. However, he still doesn't seem to understand that excessive mass nominations can be problematic independent of article quality. To me it seems a one-GAN limit could be a good solution, allowing Tony to continue submitting his absolute best content but also protecting GAN reviewers' time and energy. – Teratix ₵ 06:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBAN from the cup and GAN GAN reviewing can be hard enough even when the article is relatively high-quality; you're reading through an entire bibliography and acting as a copyeditor for a basically thankless job. It is not reasonable to expect GAN reviewers to hand-hold somebody who's been around here for so long through writing a GA-quality article; if you don't understand what makes a GA in a certain topic, don't nominate 70 of them to figure it out. AryKun (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In case it matters: I'm participating in the WikiCup and will probably qualify for the next round. AryKun (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support a Wikicup ban without question at this point, as it seems like per the above any reward-based area seems to bring out the worst in him. I'm not opposed to an outright GAN ban, but I'd perhaps prefer an indefinite strict nomination limit, no more than 3 so that the articles can actually be properly written. A three month ban stated above isn't going to work since the mass-nomming of articles that don't meet GA standards will just continue. Wizardman 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Changing my stance to Support Cup/GAN/DYK ban per the added evidence, it's clear that he's not getting it, and seems to think this is a game that he has to win at all costs rather than just writing article to write them. Wizardman 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Changing my stance further to Support ban from all content review processes per Tony's comments below, which show a blatant refusal to acknowledge that a problem even exists with his conduct, let alone a desire to fix it. Wizardman 15:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'll note we've seen similar behavior at DYK, including arguing about his apparent interest in gaming of DYK rules by saying, All rules are made to be broken and gamed.
      Example of how he intends to game here: As I think of my next potential DYK candidate, Joanne McCarthy (basketball) that I have 5xed over the weekend, the new set of rules allows two alternatives. 1. I could DYK now and GA-DYK in 5 years with minimal change 2. I could GA now and DYK within 7 days after it gets approved with a 2nd DYK only possible with another 5x in 5 years. This was in a discussion of whether DYK should allow repeat appearances. Tony literally is planning 5 years out so he can get repeat DYK credits.
      I'm actually a little concerned that a tban from GAN/WikiCup might just transfer the issue to DYK full time. Tony seems to be extremely interested in scorekeeping. Which of course can be a motivator for some people, and he's certainly created or improved a lot of articles. Valereee (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "All rules are made to be broken and gamed" that is absolutely ridiculous, and i think you're right that this disruption will just move over to DYK. his idea of "GA-DYKing in 5 years with minimal change" says to me that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about how GAN works. probably both. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He didn't do that, though: Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1. Also, in the Joanne McCarthy (basketball) review, the CUP points gaming again comes up as an issue in a couple of ways. He requests the reviewer promote in a specified time frame (Also, be advised that I am competing in the WP:CUP. Do not promote on Feb 28 or 29.) and in response to a sourcing concern about the subject's Polish heritage, a source is quickly added to the article that likely does not meet WP:BLP. The McCarthy article is not a problematic page (loads of pages have small sections or a few missing sources), but Tony is clearly capable of better writing (Juwan Howard) outside of this CUP context. Rjjiii (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      i'm not entirely sure if you're disagreeing with me (or if you were intending to respond directly to Valereee's comment?) but i agree with the substance of what you're saying ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not so much disagreeing with either of you, but pointing out the nuance that even though his talk page comment was regarding DYK, the actual disruptive edits (overloading GA and placing a bizarre citation into a BLP) were again done in the context of the CUP. To be clear: I would support a WikiCup TBAN, but I'm not speculating on how he'll react. I empathize with the frustration from editors in this discussion about the need for this discussion to get this far, but don't see the need to impose the various restrictions mentioned in this thread all at once. Apologies if I was opaque before, Rjjiii (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      no worries! i just wasn't entirely clear on your position. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not familiar enough with the WikiCup situation to have any firm opinion on it, but when it comes to GAN I support, at minimum, the removal of all outstanding nominations. I noticed the nomination of Malcolm (Macbeth), which is very obviously very far from GA standards even at a quick glance. An editor with both hundreds of successful GA nominations of their own and hundreds of reviews of other people's nominations surely knows better; on the off chance that they genuinely do not, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they likely never will. Nominating articles that are not ready would appear to be a pattern; looking at the user's talk page, I saw that during the course of a 24-hour time period (20:25 UTC on 22 March to 20:25 UTC on 23 March), no fewer than 25 "Failed GA" messages were left by (ChristieBot on behalf of) ten different reviewers. This indicates to me that leaving the remainder of the (rather large number of) nominations up would not be a good use of the community's time. TompaDompa (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think part of the problem is with the editor but part of it is with the WikiCup... Its not set up for an honest editor to win, its set up for the winner to be the person who games the system the hardest without betting disqualified. The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. The difference is that most of those editors were more subtle about it than this one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. My suggestions to balance scoring to stop this have yet to be adopted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For the curious, can you link to those suggestions? -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The suggestions are at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/1#Points for next year. For what it's worth, any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming; however, the vast majority of editors don't also violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies while participating. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that the WikiCup encourages users to time their nominations for maximum score (instead of nominating when the article is ready). I'm not sure that this is a huge problem; different people have won the Cup using different strategies over the last years, and some of them increased my respect for the winners, others did not. The issue here is that TTT did not just try to score WikiCup points with little effort, but disrupted other processes while doing so. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree its not generally a problem, its kind of a poster child for something that is objectively a net positive... But that doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides. But on the other hand these are issues the community should never be having to deal with, the whole point of the game having referees/managers is to prevent this sort of community disruption and time wasting from happening. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I checked the past four WikiCups and you can't say any of the winners were gaming; they all did a fair number of FACs and otherwise earned their points in a lot of ways, from doing lots of GANRs to making large GTs to ITN. Only one winner mainly relied on points from GAs, and nominating 60 articles you've worked on over the course of the year over two months is hardly gaming. This is poor decision-making on TTT's part and not something that's a trend with the cup. AryKun (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      More than one way to game the system. Agree to disagree on whether this is a trend, but note that it would be remarkable if a competition like the wikicup didn't come with the negatives normally associated with open entry organized competitions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the sake of completion I note that TTT's last ten nominations at FAC have all been archived. Nine are from 2014–2016 and one from 2023. This included five nominations of Emily Ratajkowski; in the last of these TTT received a coordinator warning "Tony, I'm not prepared to allow accusations of bad faith leveled at reviewers without substantive evidence. Please strike these immediately and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. This isn't the venue. Additionally, there are many occasions when nominators and reviewers come to an impasse about content. I'd prefer you let [the FAC coordinators] weigh the matter rather than posting repeated pings and harangues when the reviewer has disengaged." TTT kicked back. (Disclosure: I have been a FAC coordinator since 2020 and closed TTT's 2023 FAC nomination.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the assembled examples of tendentious behavior in relation not only to GAN/WikiCup, but also DYK, FAC, and COI editing, I think that a GAN/WikiCup ban is the bare minimum sanction, and that a broad WP-space ban may in fact be more appropriate (although this is somewhat complicated by the fact that these various processes exist across multiple Wikipedia namespaces). What I see here is a pattern of behavior for over a decade of consistently engaging with quality-control/content-promotion processes in an entirely self-serving fashion, conveniently ignoring guidelines when it suits them, and accusations of bad faith against editors who don't provide review results to their liking. There's little reason to believe that this behavior will change other than by barring them from engaging with such processes. signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from WikiCup and GAN. TTT has an extensive history of NOTHERE gaming the system for Wikipedia points and self-promotion. I would support further bans as well. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WikiCup TBAN I don't like commenting at ANI, but this seems like a good time to step in as someone who has experience with Tony from the Vital Articles project. Sadly, it would appear that a TBAN from the WikiCup is needed to deal with disruption, but I believe that he can be productive. I also weakly support a restriction on open GANs as a fair step to prevent disruption without barring him from making good content entirely. I oppose an indefinite ban because he has shown himself to be a quality contributor who can contribute productively when not doing stuff like this. I believe a WikiCup TBAN and a restriction on GANs will solve the problem while allowing him to continue to contribute productively. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support WikiCup TBAN with the suggestion of leaving our snarky remarks at the door in the future. Panini! • 🥪 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support permanent WikiCup TBAN and temporary GA and DYK TBAN, as a minimum. I was prepared to limit my support only to a TBAN from WikiCup, as the current locus of disruption, until I saw Valeree's comment quoting TTT as very recently saying "All rules are made to be broken and gamed". No. That is not the sort of collegiality and cooperation that we should be bringing to Wikipedia editing. Some rules are obstructions but almost all were created as a response to a specific problem, and TTT's behavior is a problem that is currently producing a push for more obstructive rules at WT:GAN that could slow down the whole GA system for everyone. If we take away WikiCup, it seems likely that GA badge counts will become the next personal contest to game. The GA process needs time away from TTT's disruption, for one thing to evaluate what is to be done to distinguish TTT's many valid Good Articles from those that may need reconsideration (with at least two currently under formal reassessment). Valeree's comment raises DYK as another very likely locus of disruption and a temporary TBAN could well head that off. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to stay neutral on the GAN and CUP topic ban proposals, since I don't think I have anything more to add to those discussions, but I oppose a topic ban from DYK in any form, at least for now. TonyTheTiger's conduct at DYK has only peripherally been discussed in this thread, and while there would be some more to unpack if it were focused on, I'm unconvinced that the DYK-specific evidence could necessitate action at this time. TBANs are preventative, but they're never preemptive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with tlc. I wasn't intending to suggest a ban from DYK just because if banned from GA/cup, that's the only place left to keep score. It might even be good to allow that one last place for TTT to show us they can learn from this. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support permanent WikiCup TBan. TonyTheTiger's participation in the WikiCup has caused problems since at least 2010 ("Michigan basketball overload", 2 sections at WT:DYK). I also propose topic ban on solo nominations in any article recognition venue: FA, GA, FP, FL, DYK ... anything. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=1194391967 "All rules are made to be broken and gamed" on January 8, 2024 (after repeated discussion of his gaming and overwhelming at review venues, including sanctions applying to specific venues); the attempts to bargain by making new demands on backlog drive dates, also recent; and the admissions of insufficient knowledge about topics on which he is submitting articles for GA consideration. The COI promotional submission at DYK is the cherry on top. He's too focused on collecting accolades and evidently will continue clogging any recognition process in which he participates. If he wants to create and improve articles for the benefit of the encyclopedia, let him collaborate with other editors on nominations. Otherwise, do without the potential recognition. (And yes, I recommend a procedural quickfail of all his current GA nominations. Someone else can further improve an article they believe has GA potential and renominate it; at GA level there's always room for further improvement, and the list can be a useful source of improvement candidates.) (I have not participated in the WikiCup for many years, or in DYK for a similar number of years, except for a couple of nominations of articles I'd worked on by someone else.) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from GAN and DYK, also remove all his current GANs. This diff in particular is just shameless, also given past incidents of gaming the system.--Catlemur (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block from any "awards" whether GAN, WikiCup, DYK or what have you. Should have been when he tried to get his sister onto the fromt page with blatant disregard for COI. Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_195#COI_issue_at_Carla_Vernón but escaped it then. Clear history of acting in his own interest and not that of the project. Star Mississippi 01:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      He tried to get his SISTER on the front page? Jesus Christ. I've collaborated with him on some FAs, but no one with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind would dare to pull that. Chalk me up as well as advocating a Block from all "awards" as per Star Mississippi. Ravenswing 06:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      and this wasn't even, "I know this is not the right course, but here's my case for why she deserves it" but rather "I don't see what your issue is." That was the most problematic especially from someone of his tenure. Besides the WT:DYK, the discussion is also on the article talk. Star Mississippi 13:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Quite. If he was lying about that, that's a massive downcheck. If he wasn't, that's a massive competency issue. Ravenswing 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Disclaimer: I first heard about the situation involving Tony on Discord a few days ago, when it came up in a discussion among GAN reviewers, but I wasn't canvassed or asked to participate in any discussion, and my views here are purely my own.) Having reviewed the different discussions that have taken place at Tony's talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, I think a permanent topic ban for TonyTheTiger from the WikiCup is warranted. Tony has repeatedly refused to get the point that their conduct has been disruptive and a drain on other editors who are trying to participate in the WikiCup in good faith. Some of Tony's remarks that were directed towards other editors, especially Generalissima, are also pretty subpar and fall below the expectations I would have of somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for nearly 18 years. As for a topic ban from GAN or other featured content processes, I am more neutral; I think Tony could contribute to these areas constructively provided that he no longer participates in the WikiCup, but I understand why others feel that a broader topic ban or restriction might be necessary to address Tony's conduct. MaterialsPsych (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Having read Tony's statement below, my opinion hasn't changed too much. I think an indefinite topic ban from the WikiCup is the bare minimum required to prevent further disruption. I am still not really in favor of an indefinite topic ban from featured content creation processes (e.g., GAN, DYK) at this time, but I think the removal of any of Tony's recent GANs which have not yet been reviewed or are not currently being reviewed is acceptable. However, it is evident that there have been issues in the past with Tony and featured content processes (i.e., the issues with Featured Sounds and the DYK conflict of interest incident that have been mentioned by others). If anything comes up again in the future with Tony's conduct in featured content processes on this noticeboard, I will be far less likely to give Tony the benefit of the doubt if a topic ban or more severe sanctions are on the table. MaterialsPsych (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from GAN and removal of current GANs. His current behavior is disruptive to the GA process, as many have stated above; a TBAN from GAN is sufficient to prevent that disruption. I very much doubt the disruption will stop until TTT recognizes why his behavior is disruptive and commits to changing it (I have seen evidence of neither). An indefinite TBAN until he's prepared to make such a commitment seems appropriate. Ajpolino (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given TTT's apology below, a GAN limit of 1 nomination at a time is also fine with me. If he shows he can handle that, I'm sure folks would be willing to increase that nomination limit before too long. Also just a note that I think we should clear his current unreviewed nominations -- which basically everyone seems to agree are problematic -- from the GAN queue. Ajpolino (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No bans (edit conflict)I am not sure why every solution to problems must include onerous sanctions. As Starship.paint has said below, we are in the middle of things... and IMO there is not an immediate need to stop a disruption. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So, just to be clear, you don't feel there's any problem with Tony's behavior here at all? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support limitation on active GA noms, no bans - Limiting the amount of active GA noms Tony is allowed to have seems to take care of the immediate problem at hand. Not sure why we are ready to throw prolific content creators off a cliff when they are just going through a bad phase. He does good work overall, and long-term bans here are detrimental to our readers. To be clear, he has acted questionably in some of the diffs mentioned here, but not quite enough to be permanently put away.--NØ 08:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What makes you think this is just a "bad phase"? TTT has been engaging in this behavior since at least 2010. And by "this behavior" I mean relentlessly pursuing "awards" collection and self-promotion to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He was banned from Featured Sounds for the same reasons outlined in this RfC. Last year he tried to get an article he wrote on his sister onto the front page on her birthday, accompanied by a picture with him in it (despite a previous ban on uploading pictures of himself!). He has been blocked multiple times for baselessly accusing editors who didn't support his TFA/FS requests of racism. At what point does this become a pattern? JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Remember kids, you can get away with anything so long as you're a "prolific content creator". They live by an entirely different set of standards. We are approaching Coldwellian levels of misconduct (and apologism for said misconduct), along with total refusal to accept any responsibility for one's actions here, and that is not something I say lightly, given my prominent involvement in that saga. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from Cup, limitation on active GA noms preferably to one active nomination at a time. If the disruptive behavior relocates itself to DYK, we can deal with it there, but I feel a sanction for that would be premature at this stage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from WikiCup, support limitation on active GA noms (I'd prefer something between three and five), oppose DYK ban. Oppose indefinite GA TBAN, but not opposed to a three-month GA ban (with the carveout that he can continue any GA work that is currently being reviewed or that he is reviewing). The WikiCup seems to be the main driver of the disruption – if the disruption continues outside the Cup then we could revisit. Also not seeing enough for a DYK ban. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Tony has been removed from the cup by the judges.
    • Support indefinite TBAN from WikiCup, support limitation on active GA noms (I'd prefer one), support DYK ban. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite ban from Cup, limitation on GA noms The gaming has been quite breathtaking, and TTT seems unrepentant. I would suggest no more than 1 GA nom at a time. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinate TBAN from WikiCup, low limitation on GA noms (three seems reasonable), removal of all current GANs where a review is not yet posted, and a minimum three-month gap between a failed GA review and renominating the article: TTT has been renominating quickfails after edits that only address a small portion of the issues raised, which is one reason why I think he needs limits on his participation at GAN. If the community insists on a TBAN there, I won't oppose that, though it's a second choice. If he persists in nominating articles that don't meet the GA criteria per the GAN instructions, then a TBAN there seems inevitable (and may be so already). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite TBAN from Cup and GAN limits Most of the problems seem to stem out of WikiCup gaming, but I think TTT could still be a useful contributor at GA. (I wouldn't mind a 3 month GA TBAN though, but I have no strong thoughts one way or the other.) If abuse continues, I would be open to a harder GAN limit or Star Mississippi's proposal. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite ban from GAN (EDIT: See below), second choice a nomination limit of one (but would honestly be healthier just to leave it at zero IMO). Did not want to pile on until Tony made a statement, but... that was the wrong statement. Notably there doesn't appear to be an "In deference to GA norms, I'll withdraw some/most of my nominations on my own" in it, and I still see the spam sitting in WP:GAN. That is table stakes in any statement given that he's been told to do this, repeatedly, bluntly, and now en masse at ANI, and the fact that he hasn't done it himself speaks poorly of him getting the point. If Tony didn't "consider [it] would be a problem" at first, how come he didn't trust his fellow editors when they told him that yes, it was a problem? To state what's been said many times before... GAN is not some sort of content assessment service to drop off articles you've worked on. It's more like trading peer reviews, and it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what GA nomination & reviewing is to spam it so blatantly just to "use the further polish of GAN attention". And everyone has waited a long time for GA reviews before, it's not unique to Tony, and shouldn't it be obvious that this kind of spam makes that problem worse? Tony can be a great content creator; it's time to rekindle the love of doing it just to do it, no stars and no icons attached. SnowFire (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a side note: "I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light" is wishful thinking. Many of the cited GA quickfails should not have passed GA even with 2010 standards. SnowFire (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure it is wishful thinking, but unlike Tony I think that's a problem. I think if he hadn't drawn the attention of several experienced reviewers by submitting such a high volume at once, many of the articles that were QF'd would have instead been reviewed by reviewers more prone to looking at the list of GA icons he has on his user page and deciding that they (ie, the reviewers) were in the wrong, not him. "He must know what he's doing... I guess I don't really understand the standards," etc. -- asilvering (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Upgrade to full ban from all content review processes with narrow exception of GANs currently under review and GAR / FAR of TTT's content. I was unimpressed with Tony's original reply and not withdrawing his noms (I'm not demanding mind control, it'd have been fine to say "I strenuously disagree but if the community considers such mass nominations a problem, fine, I won't do that"), and his later comments appear to be from a different planet, seemingly still defending miles-off nominations like Heath Irwin and viewing himself as the victim, rather than the aggressor. GAN is to take a mostly-there article and make it better. Maybe there's some other process for articles wildly far off from GA status, like a Tony-specific "this month's article to help me improve", but it ain't GAN, and this isn't hard to understand. SnowFire (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanction The entire point of the WikiCup is to encourage editors to do more in order to score points as a form of gamification. The participants will, of course, game this and competitive pressure will then generate this sort of excess. If this seems problematic then the rules of the competition should be adjusted. For example, if a GAN is quickfailed, the nominator might lose points as a penalty. So, fix the game, don't punish the players. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Gamification made me do it" is not an excuse, and the WikiCup rules are already very blunt that editors who worsen Wikipedia in an attempt to win will be kicked out. As indeed happened in this case. There's no need to create Wikipedia:Asshole John rules which will be a feel-bad for good faith editors who get a nom'd quickfailed for standard and legitimate reasons. I would suggest striking your rather bold claim that Wikicup "participants" in general behave this badly, which is obviously false - nobody else in the WikiCup harassed valid reviewers like TTT did. SnowFire (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        See similar comments above such as "The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. ... This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. ... any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming."
        As TTT has been disqualified now by a WikiCup judge, that seems adequate to correct the immediate issue. My point is that the contest's checks and balances should be left to work themselves out without ANI piling in too.
        Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • SUPPORT BAN from all content review processes: (saw this while I was here for another thread above). TTT's abuse of content review processes for personal reward-seeking reasons is a problem more than a decade old, where the FAC page and FA process was seriously misused, mostly fed by TTT's desire to win WikiCup, with most of TTT's articles having be extensively re-worked by other editors. TTT has continuously and constantly abused content review processes (FAC, GAN) to gain rewards at WikiCup and DYk, while content produced has been initially marginal and sapped reviewer time to bring pages to standard, and Wikipedia will not lose if this problem can be removed from the pages it is draining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban from all content review processes: I've experienced Tony's combative behaviors around not-ready content at FAC, and it's clear that it's an issue at DYK and GAN too. With such an egregious track record going back years across all areas, this seems to be the minimum to save everyone else time and frustration. "The Wikicup made me do it" is not a valid reason to defend this. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban from all content-related Wikipedia contests, but not from GAN. Tony does good work, they just need to focus on improving Wikipedia instead of getting high scores. I had to go looking a long way back to find the dispute that caused me to remember TonyTheTiger's name. Way back in 2014, TTT created a content fork on the high school career of a professional basketball player, and it was deleted at AFD. Tony challenged at DRV where it was endorsed, and then it was nominated for deletion a second time after Tony recreated it anyway. Tony's bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith in that discussion included a bizarre conspiracy of Canadian editors being secret members of WikiProject Hockey working against coverage of basketball topics, and spawned an ANI thread in which Tony was warned to back off. The article was then salted, which led Tony to start another AN thread requesting its restoration, which was a rather transparent attempt to set up for recreating the deleted article a third time. The player's high school career was later expanded in the main article, which is what should have happened in the first place without all the drama, but Tony was after points for the WikiCup or the Four award or some other contest so we got to play this game for a few months instead. What's happening with GAN spamming isn't the same issue but it's the same root cause, and it's disappointing that the same problem persists a decade after our spat: Tony is editing to score points, and improving content only because it scores points. As the essay says, "a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." Tony is a prolific and valuable editor who just needs to refocus on content and stop making messes, and a ban from participating in these contests and awards will help. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ivanvector, just to clarify, are you also wanting Tony to be banned from claiming WP:Four Awards? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Would you say that's not covered by "all content-related Wikipedia contests"? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's why I wanted to clarify. I don't view 4A as a contest, as you're not competing against other people for a prize in a limited timeframe. (I know there have historically been issues with Tony and 4A, and I'm not trying to say he shouldn't necessarily be banned from 4A, just clarifying your stance). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair question, then. Yes, I think he should be banned from seeking those awards, but that does raise an issue of enforcement since we can't stop other editors handing them out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup per Ivanvecor, PMC and Buidhe. Bling is one thing, but active disruption (and the complete wasting of people's time that has with it!) brings behavior into the community's purview. ...and PMC, particularly, oozes a degree of sarcasm that I can only dream of. ——Serial Number 54129 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from WikiCup and content review processes per PMC, Sandy, DWF, my previous comments on the WikiCup talk page, and Tony's recent comments below (starting with In the back of my mind...) which amount to a conspiracy theory about other editors. (Disclosure: I am currently competing in the WikiCup.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping this pile on open is, well, piling on. Tony has already withdrawn from the contest and promised to be careful with his submissions. Maybe someone can Close this donnybrook with accepting those facts and moving on with no additional punishments (except for a Hair shirt, to be worn at the Wikiconferences). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • One, Tony did not withdraw. Tony was withdrawn by the WikiCup judges. He gets zero credit for this. (Same with the withdrawn GANs - he mostly did not do it, someone else did the vast majority of the withdraws, he's made clear below he still doesn't think he should have to or there was a problem here.)
      • Two, you're reading Tony's comments below substantially different than everyone else. We could have moved on ages ago with a slap on the wrist if Tony had replied differently. Tony only has Tony to blame for the pile on continuing, by giving hostile responses to genuine concerns. You complained above about "Wikipedia eating its own"; why does that not apply to the good-faith reviewers whom Tony accused of bad faith and wild conspiracies in the linked diffs? Why did it take going to ANI at all, where Tony was resilient at admitting any fault when repeatedly told his conduct was poor? Civility and AGF is a two-way street. SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, civility and AGF are not a two-way street. Everyone has a choice to follow them, although I can't claim I always have, but I do assume that Tony has gotten the message even though he may disagree with parts of it. I read Tony's explanation as a very good study in human nature, quite self-perceptive. And the difference you mention? Tony is not trying to get someone banned from a part of Wikipedia that he has shown expertise in, but just stating his point of view, and receiving question after question about it. As for eating our own, happens way too often here (but that's just my opinion, and I don't even read every section on the drama board, pretty selective in fact). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal for GAN TBAN exception for already actively reviewed GANs

    I see that there are GANs already actively being reviewed before the start of this ANI. One is Talk:3:16 game/GA1 (closed now) where Tony is the reviewer. Another is Talk:In a World.../GA1 where Tony's article is being reviewed. Others include Talk:2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1, Talk:Wait a Minute (The Pussycat Dolls song)/GA3 and Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1. Perhaps there are more such GANs that I missed. In the interests of being reasonable, having courtesy and respect for Tony and the other reviewer/reviewed editors of these GANs, I suggest a carve-out to allow Tony to participate in these if he receives a GAN TBAN. This does not apply to GANs Tony nominated but no one has reviewed yet. This would also not apply to any GAN review Tony started after the ANI began. starship.paint (RUN) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In the case of GANs where Tony is the reviewer, that seems fair enough. In the case of GANs where Tony is the nominator, the reviewer should be made aware of the situation here (if they aren't already) and given the option to discontinue the review. But if they're happy to continue, giving Tony a carve-out seems fair enough. – Teratix ₵ 06:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if the other reviewers wish to stop for any reason, then that is the end for that nomination. starship.paint (RUN) 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed Talk:Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention/GA1 (closed now), Talk:A Christmas Story: The Musical/GA1, Talk:Chris Hill (basketball)/GA1. starship.paint (RUN) 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Junk the Wikicup

    Proposal SNOW closed and wrong venue. starship.paint (RUN)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Closing this per WP:SNOW and (more importantly) the wrong venue to request a project be closed. (non-admin closure) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ...because it regularly leads to this kind of trouble. It's long outlived its usefulness. EEng 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? When was the last time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose due to being obviously incorrect. The purpose/"usefulness" of the cup is to encourage users to improve content, which it does. One person possibly trying to game the system isn't a valid rationale to junk the entire competition. It's silly to suggest we do so just because of one person. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Clearly not the correct outcome. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think this is the right conclusion to draw from the discussions above. The vast majority of WikiCup participants don't violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies, and when they do, they get disqualified from the competition (as Tony was just recently). As for It's long outlived its usefulness, it's inspired people to expand or create hundreds of articles over the years, the vast majority of which, again, have no issues. I'm going to say that any type of competition is liable to have issues like this come up; it's just a matter of how well the problem is handled by the judges of such contests. Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Junk and never replace... Or junk until we can come up with something better? Not super open to the first but could see the second being valuable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I feel the fact that the community is so eager to sanction someone gaming the cup in this way is a good sign that Wikicup participants not want this sort of incident to occur again. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People want to sanction them for gaming wikipedia, not for gaming the cup... As far as I know that would be up to the Cup's organizers and I don't think they've chosen to take any action here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony's already been kicked out of the cup. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't think they've chosen to take any action here. - I disqualified him from the cup earlier today, once I got to my computer. I had limited internet access over the weekend, so I couldn't do it earlier. Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I didn't know that you were the only organizer who could do that. Is there a reason they're recorded as withdrawn rather than eliminated on the project page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Horse Eye's Back, if this is an underhanded comment directed at Cwmhiraeth and Frostly, you're still required to notify them as you're now discussing their conduct at ANI. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't, I wasn't aware who the organizers were or how many there were when I made the original comment. If that is not the case I apologize, but then I don't really understand why Epicgenius having limited internet access is relevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While Cwmhiraeth and Frostly are also judges, I'm currently acting as the de facto main organizer of this competition. Hence, I made the decision to withdraw them as soon as I was able. Epicgenius (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting here that I support the decision to withdraw. — Frostly (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Cwmhiraeth is now largely retired from WP, and is there to help Epicgenius and Frostly, who are both new to the role. So far (in the 30% of a cup we've had), Epicgenius has done the work of setting up/eliminating contestants. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's largely a technical distinction. Contestants are marked in red if, at the end of the round, they don't have enough points to qualify for the next round. Contestants are marked in purple if they are removed or if they withdraw from the competition in the middle of the round. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because despite the extra drama it really is needed to help reduce backlogs (at GA, for instance) and would have done so this time if not for TTT's gaming. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It still does, even with TTT considered. So far this year, Cup competitors have contributed 316 GA reviews and 108 featured article/list reviews, against 141 GAs and 26 FAs/FLs promoted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose drastic proposal without even an attempt to provide evidence. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose per Epicgenius & Gog ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - It’s been a long time since I had available time to participate in the WikiCup, but the year that I did, it encouraged me to keep putting in effort and working on the encyclopedia. I kind of like that. It’s a shame some people have to game, like robbing the bank in Monopoly, but proper enforcement by the coordinators and responding to gaming complaints seems like a small price to pay for a positive force for editing. I may want to see some reforms personally that continue to encourage contributions from those eliminated early on, but nothing wrong with the concept as a whole. Red Phoenix talk 20:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. It's not really my cup of tea but it prompts people to improve the encyclopaedia and they have fun while doing it so it's harmless at worst. It has been known to cause some problems with backlogs at review processes but I believe steps have been taken in recent years to mitigate that. It's unfortunate that one editor took things too far and didn't participate on the principle that it was fun, but I see no reason to think that's typical of editors participating in the cup. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is daft, even by your standards, EEng. Oppose, obviously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - no real evidence has been provided that the WikiCup regularly leads to this kind of trouble or has long outlived its usefulness. I don't think we need to get rid of something that most people seem to be able to constructively participate in just because a few don't. MaterialsPsych (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    TonyTheTiger's statement

    Today, I stumbled upon a User talk page of a user who had been blocked, with instructions on how to appeal a block User_talk:Ptb1997#September_2023. It gives the directive that

    To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

    • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
    • the block is no longer necessary because you
      1. understand what you have been blocked for,
      2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
      3. will make useful contributions instead.

    I know bans are different than blocks, but the spirit of the directive is relevant here. I have tried to not say anything that I would regret for the last few days. I will be making a statement in the next 6 hours.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I joined the WP:CUP this year. I remember finishing 2nd in the 2010 CUP and had honestly forgotten about WP:FS topic ban surrounding the 2011 CUP. Knowing myself, I probably figured out a strategy that if allowed to run its course would have given me a good chance to finish at least 2nd again without recognition of the broader implications of the strategy to WP in general and to the CUP. I apologize for whatever happened then (again, if I have already done so — finally, if I have not).

    This year, I entered the CUP on a whim. As it progressed, I regained some editorial vigor that I had had before and during the 2010 CUP. I started feeling competitive. First, I started thinking about making the finals again and before you know it I was trying to strategize a podium finish. In the CUP great Featured Articles producers have an advantage. I am not such an editor. I have a pretty low success rate at WP:FAC for the number of FAs that I have. I large percentage of my FAs are the results of co-nominators or co-editors who are far better copyeditors than I. However, I have a long history of success at GA and DYK. So I decided to focus my efforts on those two methods of scoring CUP points.

    There were two main impediments to my prospects for success in the 2024 CUP. First, the way I have been keeping the bills paid is highly seasonal. Last year, I earned over 82% of my income between May and October. The busy season is usually May through September and it can roll into October depending on certain factors. I needed a strategy that would enable me to compete even when I get busy with work. Second, I don’t tend to get reviewed very quickly on GA. Recent history will show you that I don’t get the fastest GA reviews (probably because I don’t do a lot of reviews anymore). See the GAN queue before last year’s August backlog drive. I took a look at the rules and figured a way that I could have a good chance at continuing to score a lot of GA points while I am very busy and while my review lag tends to be high. I figured, that if I could put a lot of articles in the queue in a way that they would have date priority at GAN I would be able to score enough cup points in rounds 3 and 4 to have a good chance to make the finals. Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA. Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.

    GA evaluation is a very subjective process. Artilcles that might meet with good favor under the right sunlight may suffer a bad fate under a cloud of darkness. Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers with my GA strategy. Ex post, it looks like I submit a lot of crappy articles to GAN. My long history at GAN probably says otherwise. However, I am not here to debate the quality of recently reviewed articles.

    I do understand that a common theme among the reviews for the old DYK nominations at GAN is that they have not aged well. Some have become out of date. Others have evolved into states where maintenance tags should have been or were added to the articles. I think in the neighborhood of 2 dozen (if not more) of my GAN articles have been quickfailed at in recent days. All but one of these have been DYKs from past years. There has been little issue with my recent editorial activity. I’ll try to give you a list here for comparison with those that have been rejected. You will probably agree that my most recent work upholds the standards of GA that all interested parties are concerned about. The following are current nominations (all sports articles except for one and mostly basketball) from recent work: Gary Bossert, Andrew Dakich, Jennifer Martz, Sean Jackson (basketball), Dave Jamerson, Billy Garrett Jr.The most recent lead hook at WP:DYK, Todd Leslie, Peter Patton (basketball) and Eustace Tilley. Additionally, the following recent works were going to be heading into the GAN queue soon: Kobe Bufkin, Will Tschetter, Drew Golz, Draft:Kasey Morlock, and Draft:Alia Fischer.

    I realize that it would be easier on reviewers and better for the GAN system if I refrained from nominating stale, atrophied and otherwise less exemplary articles. However, I do believe that things that I have recently researched continue to be of benefit to the WP readership and could use the further polish of GAN attention. Although I continue to have faults as an editor in need of correction, none of my recent works (mostly created from scratch) should have much in common with the recent batch of quickfails.

    I probably should not be involved in the CUP since I have twice gotten too competitive in ways that are adverse to the general mission of WP. I don’t really think the GA ban is entirely necessary. My current work at GAN is probably not as problematic as the topics that have been distant from my attention for years. The real problems that I am having with GAN are not so much as my general lack of understanding of what is deserving of review attention, but my competitive CUP juices compelling me to nominate articles with very slight consideration and minimal recent editorial involvement.

    I consider it highly unlikely that you will ever see a slew of articles with prominent blemishes if my GAN privileges were allowed to continue in general. It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP without burdening the GAN reviewers any more than normal.

    My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either. However, I don’t really think that a person who gets too competitive with the CUP needs much more than to be removed from the CUP to continue to be an asset to WP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Tony. I have a few follow-up questions.
    1. Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA What inspired this feeling? Did you read back over the DYK promotions and feel each one was worth a shot at GAN? Or was it a more general feeling that if you'd managed to get an article through DYK, it was probably worth giving it a shot at GAN?
      Read back over would definitely be a wrong description. Basically, I took a quick glance at every DYK I have had since mid 2010 and some related articles. E.g. Some Big Ten or Ivy League seasons as well as Michigan and Princeton seasons may have been before that cutoff, but I looked at all of those similar article types with a quick glance. I eliminated all short DYKs. I think anything that was not at least 2800-3000 characters was cut. I glanced for citation needed templates, but surely missed some. If it had a top maintenance tag, it probably got cut. No real scientific process. I probably cut a list of 550 down to about 100. Then I looked at the ones I had to work on before nominating and the ones that I thought were close enough to be shaped up. I think I looked to see if I was the top 3 or 4 editors on each page as well, but confess I did not pay much attention to my percentage contribution. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem. That's a comment on your past mental state. Do you, as of now, consider the number of GANs you submitted at once to have been a problem?
      The GAN process is set up to have hundreds of simultaneous nominations at once. I would not be surprised if the GAN could present 1000 at once. I have in the past had upwards of 30 simultaneous nominations at once I believe. GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face. The problem is that I have never dug up articles from the past and nominated them. I have always nominated articles that I have recently honed and crafted. As I mentioned above, I stand behind all of the DYK creations from the past few months as viable GAN candidates. I should have given more serious consideration to which types of topics tend to atrophy over time. Many of the subjects that I submitted were BLPS of subjects I last paid close attention to on the order of a decade ago. They either had or should have had significant changes that I was not involved in editorially. I think I placed too much faith in added contributions with WP:ICs. I think I sort of felt if all the added stuff had ICs, it was an article that was probably up to snuff, which is not really a valid check. My process was flawed and that was a sort of a problem.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers To be more specific, do you believe e.g. Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1 would have passed or had a significantly improved chance of passing had you not "upset a lot of active GA reviewers" at the time? Are there specific failed GANs you believe would not have been failed had you not "upset a lot of active GA reviewers"?
      There was definitely a time when the current version of Heath Irwin would have passed as is. For an offensive lineman who has not met with Pro Bowl-level or Super Bowl-level success, his article has some heft. I have had hundreds of successful GAs and don't remember a quickfail. I may have had some though, but I doubt I have had even 1 per 100 nominations if I have had any. A huge percentage of my GAs are American football and basketball related. So, I feel that I do have an understanding of what is a GA-caliber article for these sports. If there is a new 2024 standard for GA articles, I am not familiar with it. To my recollection, WP:WIAGA seems relatively unchanged. I use to be a lot more active with football nominations. 10 or 15 years ago when I was more active with football nominations, my rep might have kept me from having a nom quickfailed in the past and helped with some promotions. I concede that the percentage of football reviewers who even know me from Adam nowadays is much smaller. Nonetheless, I can see the patience that I have had as a reviewer at Talk:3:16 game/GA1 for an article that was not well formed and immediately nomed at WP:AFD when I began my review. I am also aware of the skill and patience of many reviewers. I believe that there are many reviewers who would have had the patience and skill to coax me into recrafting Heath Irwin as a GA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Skill in this sense is meant to be a combination of wikipedia institutional expertise and subject matter expertise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I mentioned above that only one of my recent DYK creations met with the quickfail hatchet. In the past, I have presented several precollegiate athletes for GAN. I believe myself to have been one of, if not, the groundbreaker on producing pre-collegiate basketball GAs. When I started producing a lot of pre-collegiate basketball (and football) GAs over a decade ago many of them may have been a bit longer than Olivia Olson (basketball). In some regards, I still was quite surprised that Olson was quickfailed. I find it hard to believe that you could expect so much more than was presented for this subject that what was presented was so remote from that expectation that it deserved a quickfail.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You've been informed many times that high school athletes have to meet much higher standards for notability, otherwise we would have articles on literally every DI and DII football recruit. We sometimes don't even consider NFL draftees notable despite their garnering national coverage. This article is sourced almost exclusively to local and non-independent or primary media hype, which per NSPORT do not contribute to notability at least partly because they inherently fail to demonstrate breadth and depth of coverage and are routine for the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      User:JoelleJay, to be more specific to this article. WP:LOCAL's nutshell summary states: "This page in a nutshell: An article about a local place or person may be created if there is enough referenced information to make it encyclopedic." Furthermore, although like all pre-collegiate athletes Olson does not meet WP:NHOOPS, further up that page WP:SPORTBASIC says "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Furthermore, in regard to the numerous discussions regarding pre-collegiate athletes and this issue of local vs. national coverage, the general agreement was that only a very few and possibly a singular national level source would suffice to meet this standard. In this case we have [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://playeroftheyear.gatorade.com/poy/assets/writable/84707/2024_GK_OOlson.pdf Gatorade.com], Rivals.com, AOL.com and Sports Illustrated albeit a locally targeted offshoot. With that support a QF was quite surprising. I don't think I have had a pre-collegiate athlete nomination with two or more national articles fail (let alone quickfail) in the past. It would not have been unreasonable for a patient reviewer to ask me if I could beef up the international section and personal life.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I and others have pointed you to Wikipedia:YOUNGATH several times.
      Gatorade is obviously not an independent source, the AOL piece is from the Star Tribune, the Rivals source is the offshoot specific to Michigan sports, and the SI piece is as you say a local offshoot. None of these are sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, not all local sources should be discounted, especially major papers like the Star Tribune. The only requirement is that it needs to be "clearly beyond routine coverage" – though I admit I haven't analyzed the sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just dropping into this subthread to add that GA reviews don't take a position on notability. If there isn't sigcov in reliable sources it may be quite hard to write a GA-review-passing article, but at no point is the reviewer asked to make a notability call. -- asilvering (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What? The instructions for reviewers: Ensure all articles meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It isn't one of the criteria, and you'll find it explicitly listed at WP:GACN#Beyond the scope. AfD, not GAN, is the place to decide notability. -- asilvering (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not one of the criteria, but it is explicitly in the instructions for GAN reviewers so there should be an expectation of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @JoelleJay: It was added without consensus when the same wording was added the nomination instructions. Discussions on the GA talk page have generally held that notability is not part of a GA review and should be handled at WP:AFD. Rjjiii (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. On occasion FACs are queried re notability. In principle, there is no reason why an FA couldn't be AfDed. I don't know if this has ever happened. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It has! I recall at least one. A baseball player, I think? Nominated by its main author, actually. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Gog the Mild and Asilvering: I believe you are thinking of Lewis (baseball) (AfD, FAR). TompaDompa (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's it for sure. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4. It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP Which specific GANs do you stand by? Which specific GANs should be withdrawn?
    – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick comment based on Teratix's #4, I've removed that set of nominations from the GAN queue (i.e. nominations that you haven't edited substantively in over a year, and that hadn't been reviewed yet). If you, or anyone else, thinks I hit a false positive, you are of course welcome to revert. Ajpolino (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from those articles that I have created or 5xed in the last 6 months or so, there are not too many that I can really stand solidly behind with confidence. Given the time between my past DYKs and now, I have to develop an understanding of how GAN evaluates formerly prominent athletes who have been less interesting for quite some time. Basically, anything that I have not worked on in the last 6 months is a candidate for removal.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may add one question. You seem to apologize for nominating a large slate of underprepared GA noms. Can you also talk to your behaviour towards editors, where you failed to assume good faith, and what you would do differently in the future? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP is a community of people with different backgrounds, interests, expertises, skills, and roles. We are all here to help present knowledge to the world. It certainly works best if we always assume good faith. As I have stated above, I get a bit competitive about the cup. If I could turn back the clock (now that I am reassessing my overlycompetitive nature), I would have taken the CUP less seriously, which in turn would have caused me to be less in your face. I think I am having something akin to a WP midlife crisis in which my worth as a WPian is tied up in making the finals of the CUP. I am no longer one of the great editors and need to stop competing with ghosts of my past. Trying to figure out how to play the game to make the finals the way that I did was not fair to other editors who were working hard to reduce the GAN backlog, to achieve their own success in the CUP, to maintain the integrity of GA, and to keep things going. What I should have done is just participated in the CUP with things I had worked on recently. In the future, all of my GANs will have at least a recent flourish of activity or a solid reaffirmation based on close inspection.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These aren't recent, but it may be relevant that Tony has had issues at ANI about bad faith accusations in 2013 where he was indeffed and in 2014 where he was warned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyTheTiger: Do you have any intention of apologising directly to the editors who you cast aspersions on? Further, if a new editor behaved as you did, do you believe they would have been offered the leniency this discussion has afforded you? 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Above when I stated "My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either." it was certainly intended to include them. If any of them do not feel covered by that statement, I do apologize for casting aspersions on anyone who felt thusly treated and anyone in any way offended by my CUP related behavior. In regards to leniency, I believe anyone brought up at WP:ANI is allowed to make a statement. I did not mean to abuse the system or seek special treatement by making mine, if that is the perception. I believe a new editor would be allowed to make any statement that they want.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a blanket apology Tony, not a direct apology which is what is owed to Generalissima, Teratix, the editors at WT:CUP and on your talk page, and probably elsewhere. This is not a matter of them "feeling thusly treated", it's a matter of you having made direct and explicit allegations of bad faith on their part. Perhaps you can present your mass nomination as a misjudgement or misunderstanding, but the statements you made towards other editors cannot be so excused. Regarding my second question, let me rephrase it: had you been a new editor who flooded GAN with obviously un-passably bad articles and then proceeded to make numerous allegations of bad faith against other editors, do you believe you would have been afforded the opportunity to continue editing with an ANI discussion being the most serious consequence for your actions? 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a long time to make an extensive statement because I am trying to remain level headed. I meant to make an apology that was sincere to all individuals whom I behaved inappropriately with. I feel the heat getting turned up a bit here and I am not trying to do steps 8 and 9 of the 12 steps. This is especially so as I see the line forming below for #MeToo apologies. In my time on WP, I have offended many (surely dozens). In the past week, I have offended several. Wrongly, I took offense to extremely negative reviews. I do not have any right to positive reviews regardless of my process, role, contribution, or performance. All reviewers have a right to give any review that they feel they can justify. All reviews are largely subjective, and I can not disprove any review. So, I must accept all reviews assuming good faith by their reviewers. Thus, all derisive responses to individual reviewers and even secondary discussants beg for apologies. Derisive and possibly hurtful statements to Teratix are at the top of my list of things I mean to apologize for and I do so here directly. Generalissima is likely the leading scorer in CUP points for quickfailing my reviews, but only one of these was particularly contentious to me. I actually think many of these points were well-deserved. Regardless of my contentions (is that a word) regarding any single review, I need to remain professional. I went beyond any acceptable manner of decorum with Generalissima. In fact, my interactions with Generalissima are correctly a huge part of an intervention like this. I apologize for the lack of respect conveyed in my interactions with Generalissima.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I too had hoped for a direct apology. Tony, you may want to read the lead of non-apology apology and the section non-apology apology § Ifpology. The way you apologized is quite common, but not that convincing. I'm still hoping we can end this discussion with you continuing to contribute to GAN, but me at least need to be convinced you are willing to mend trust. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall interacting with you at any other page in relation to this $#!T storm. I went back about 10 days in your contributions to double check. By my investigation our first interactaion in what is at issue was 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC). So are you asking for a direct apology to you? Or are you seconding 5225C above? -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was seconding 5225C above. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since following the thread is already a tad confusing, moving this below, but re Tony's in-line replies to the list above:
      GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face.
    • You've been told this repeatedly already, but just to say so again: Yes, it is a problem, on its face. Past a certain point, it's not on everyone else to explain why it's a problem to your personal satisfaction, you just need to accept that it is. It would have been a problem even if all your mass noms were perfect, no notes, ship it productions. It is a far worse problem when - as you yourself admitted you knew - you were seeking some "polish" from nomination review. Just as AFD isn't a way to demand other editors do cleanup, GAN isn't a way to demand other editors fix up an article for you. SnowFire (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:SnowFire, my point was that I felt it was the quality of the submissions more than the quantity. That was of course only my opinion. It may be that the quantity was more of a problem than the quality and I was wrong. It is likely that each individual here assigns a different weight to how much of this issue is related to quantity and how much is related to quality. As I have stated, in the past I have had dozens of simultaneous nominations without issue. But as we are here there is some element of the problem related to quantity and some related to quality. Clearly you assign a higher proportion of the problem to quantity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both quantity and quality were problematic. It's just that you seem to grudgingly accept that the quality was an issue, but still don't seem to get that the quantity was an issue, too. And frankly I'm skeptical that your previous activities were truly "without issue" given that you've proven not particularly perceptive to the time of other editors.
        • Hypothetical situation: an eccentric millionaire reveals that he's paid a team of independent researchers to create 1,000 new articles on notable topics, that are mostly about GA quality or close. This person is awesome. They deserve a barnstar, a Signpost article, a shout-out, whatever. However, the contracts are up so the researchers can't really do any good peer reviews themselves. Should our millionaire - who has done a fantastic service to Wikipedia (just as you have) - submit all 1,000 of these articles to GAN, because it's "an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor"? The answer is emphatically not. The awesome part was the GA-level articles themselves, not the green icon which readers neither recognize nor care about. GAN is useful as a mechanism of trading around peer reviews and second opinions, not about classifying the very best articles, and our millionaire can't possibly do their side of the equation for 1,000 articles. Which is fine. It just means that GA status is not in the cards. Basically, even in the scenario where the articles you nominated were in significantly better shape, this sort of mass nom is not a thing. The "reward" of your work is the articles having better content. SnowFire (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Personally as both a GA contributor and a millionaire, I consider your hypothetical to be ridiculous.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I'm just taking what you wrote seriously and where that would go in an extreme situation. You've completely dodged responding to the merits of the question - you still think that nominating 70 or 1,000 or whatever articles at once is no problem? I guess I should have listened to my own advice and not bothered to attempt to even convince you. SnowFire (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          You dig yourself a deeper hole with every reply here, Tony. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          There's an ongoing discussion about ways of improving the GA process to better cope with the growing backlog of reviews. One idea is to formalise a limit of 20 nominations per person and it's surprising that this hasn't been done before. A QPQ system is obviously needed too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I already linked Asshole John rule above to you. If someone is abusing the process, just ban them from the process, which you opposed above. Don't create bespoke, hacky rules just for them that also impact others. SnowFire (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          These are not bespoke, hacky rules; they seem quite natural and sensible. And they are used successfully elsewhere. The FA process limits nominators to one at a time. And DYK has a QPQ process which seems quite productive. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          DYK has a QPQ system that requires them to argue over like a fourth of hooks 3 hours before they go on the main page because everyone pumps out QPQs to get it over with. It'd be even worse at GAN, where there's a significant time investment for a good review. Every person who doesn't actually want to do a review will just tick their way through a template and the end result will be even more strain on reviewers because now they have to check every else's work too. AryKun (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          DYK has a system of triple-checking so naturally there's a further round of issues when set-builders and promoters make their additional checks. The GA process doesn't make such double-checks immediately because there's no big impact immediately. But there's a reassessment process which currently has a queue of articles awaiting further review. All such processes are naturally imperfect per the disclaimers. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Reassessment of poor reviews is not the solution. After a poor review, an opportunity has been wasted. The GA process is good when an article gets an in-depth review that makes it even better. Encouraging checkbox QPQs takes away the best thing about the process. Getting a shiny green badge is and should be secondary to the improvement to the encyclopedia that results. More shiny green badges is not itself an improvement to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the back of my mind, I am wondering if this all has anything to do with my decision to do a GAN review this malformed article with no infobox and a prominent maintenance tag to turn it into a Good article. Were the subsequent quickfails of my works and the nomination of the article at WP:AFD a vocalization of disapproval of my decision to commit to doing such a review. I.e., is there an effort to make it known that we don't want people to commit to that type of improvement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You know Tony, I really thought with your statements above that you might kind of be getting it, but this accusation of a bad faith conspiracy shows you obviously aren't. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ??????????????????? – Hilst [talk] 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      took the words right out of my mouth. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ditto ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't even understand what the purpose of the conspiracy would be here... to discourage high-quality GA reviewing? Why would anyone want to do that? My motivation in raising an issue with your nominations, for the record, was solely to keep morale high at the March GAN backlog drive, per my role as coordinator. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciated Tony's guidance and patience on the 3:16 article. Someone sent the article to AfD during the GA review and he even waited for it to conclude without a QF. I do not write many sports articles so TTT's knowledge was needed to get the article in shape. I hope you all stop parsing his words and stop looking for him to lay prostrate before this assembly. TTT is a good editor who tried to win a contest; at his core, from what I see, he improves the project and encourages others. Thanks for your help TTT! I hope to work with you again. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should I assume that this discussion means that we expect people to quickfail such articles regardless of whether they have the skill and patience to guide the article toward GA?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We should presume that they are different skillsets, and that it is entirely possible to gauge whether or not an article is fit for GA status without necessarily being inclined to take an article to GA status. You've been around far too long to fall into the delusion that only some Consecrated Elite has what it takes to make such determinations. Ravenswing 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      TonyTheTiger - by my reading of the situation, the sanctions have nothing to do with 3:16 game. It’s really other parts of your behaviour you have to improve. It’s not about other editors. starship.paint (RUN) 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Frankly, I would be more likely to quickfail an article from an experienced nominator who possesses "skill and patience". For a newbie, I'm usually happy to give them some latitude, work closely with them to improve the article, and help them go through the process to understand the GA criteria. But once someone has 100+ GAs under their belt, I expect that they will have the criteria down pat and ensure that the article basically meets them before they nominate it for GA. That applies doubly when the experienced nominator is mass-nominating old articles without re-checking them in order to score points in a competition. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My ears are open. So even though I might take on pitiful GAN presentations, it does not make it OK for me to present clearly flawed nominations and you expect more from me in my own nominations and expect careful consideration before such nominations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. Particularly when you make 60 nominations at once! I expect any experienced nominator to make sure their articles meet the GA criteria *before* nominating them. The reviewer then checks the article against the criteria with their own judgment, and suggests tweaks and improvements. This is not my opinion alone; this is our policy as stated at WP:GAN/I#N1. If you or I, as experienced reviewers, choose to give newbies a little leeway to learn the process, that doesn't mean we get to ignore the rules for our own nominations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Logosx127 must be WP:NOTHERE

    For several days, this Wikipedian has made some contributions which necessitated reaching a consensus for Eastern Catholic Churches-related articles, especially the Syro-Malabar Church article and talk page. That conversation was then brought to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Is_the_Catholic_Church_a_single_denomination_or_a_communion_of_24?, and it has lasted for days on end again. After the involvement of multiple parties disagreeing with their contributions and seeming rejection of notice given User_talk:Logosx127&diff=prev&oldid=1214852164 here, and then the lack of consensus, they opted to continue their contributions claiming a consensus had been reached. Now, discussion is at a stalemate with Logos themselves seemingly verbatimly disregarding the arguments against their desired overhaul of edits. With their latest responses, it also appears that they might just be WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but WP:ADVOCATE. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    When there are arbitrary corrections to articles, how is it wrong to question them in the discussion? How is questioning and taking a strong position in a talkpage pointing out a very clear and obvious contradiction be considered wrong? That too, especially when other editors are agreeing with me and clearly recognising the issues as in here. About the issue with the claim of consensus, it was actually another editor who initiated the claim of consensus as seen here [172][173][174][175] and many more. Since they were the original user involved in the dispute with me, I agreed with them. I too tried to implement it, even though it was against my position, believing that the consensus was created against my position. How'd that be considered advocacy? When you make such accusations like nothere about me despite all my recent edits being there at various talkpages, please also explain the rationale. Because the only rationale I find behind is an urge for harassment. Logosx127 (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, forgive my ignorance on that part of their consensus claim. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For more details, you may please have a look at this response that I gave to Lion there. I have answered more of their allegations there. I think copying all of it here will be boring for the adminstrators as well as me. Logosx127 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To offer my two cents: With TheLionHasSeen, I participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, trying to offer several possible solutions to the ambiguities/confusions that Logosx127 (and seemingly only Logosx127) believes are present in Wikipedia's coverage of particular pages. The solutions I presented didn't seem to satisfy the concerned editor. I'm not sure about WP:NOTHERE, but I am concerned that the whole thing ballooned into a very long, timesinking discussion when this is, in my view, all possibly resolved by any editor taking the time and making the effort to add one or two sourced sentences. As the only editor who seems to believe that the pages affected currently present ambiguity/confusion, the rather obvious question is why Logosx127 didn't do this themselves. I was also concerned that Logosx127's discussion seemed to have two prongs which are impossible to reconcile: on one prong, we need to clarify ambiguities/confusions; on the other prong, the only correct interpretation of the ambiguity is their own with no possibility of nuance. My instinct is it might just be a good-faith but counterproductive zeal against any possible ambiguities/confusions that does not square nicely with nuances and reasonable interpretations, rather than WP:NOTHERE. But this is only based off our discussion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also participated in the aforementioned discussion, and I concur entirely with IgnatiusofLondon's interpretation. I think Logosx127 sees a problem and is trying to fix it; whether there actually is a problem to fix is being debated. There are issues here, but NOTHERE and ADVOCATE are not the ones. Smdjcl (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Logosx127 is a stubborn editor who occasionally intentionally pushes the edit warring limit and sometimes is unwilling to concede to consensus, but they seem to be genuinely here to build an encyclopedia and lobbied hard to have their editing privileges restored. Especially considering that I rose the matter with admins who looked into Logosx127's editing history and found no serious misconduct, I'm inclined against any sanctions at this time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, after reading these observations, I have to admit that I would like to not be inclined against any sanctions either at this time. From seeing others' input here, I see that it is merely zeal, even though it seems to be coming off also as hardcore zealotry. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbritti what might be an alternative if they continue to push the edit warring limit however and is unwilling to concede to consensus? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments are contradictory. Initially you said there is no consensus, now you are claiming that there is. Logosx127 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a consensus, it's that no one here agrees with you, and I will not engage in another edit war with you on Oriental Orthodox Churches. This is becoming enough, and I am beginning to wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is also a consensus, it is that on the lists of Christian denominations by category and membership, no one desires to remove the Eastern Catholic Churches completely by your measured understanding. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pbritti, @IgnatiusofLondon, and @Smdjcl, I am growing tired of this continually being dragged. It came to the point of me putting a warning notice on their talk page, but I reverted and recanted publishing it because it would have done no good. Now, they have come on my talk page copying what I did. I reverse my request of no sanctions, and request a hammer. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been continuously disregarding the article talk page and the reliable sources at Oriental Orthodox churches. Now you are disregarding your own words and is edit warring by removing sourced content. At this point I must certainly respond to this mocking wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others?: Well I am not here to war, my policy is WP:NPOV. Some editors tend to attack me when they believe I am a threat to their POV. In the specific case of Eastern Catholic Churches, it is their catholic pov. I find it very ridiculous considering the fact I am myself a Catholic too. Logosx127 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the edit warring going on right now, I'd say you both need blocked from editing the article for a while, and need to hash it out on the Talk page. Follow the Dispute Resolution process.
    That said, Logosx, templating in retaliation is not a good idea per WP:POINT. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am withholding myself from any contribution regarding this, because while they might not care, I do care that I am not blocked and would like to exemplify the character of one who doesn't desire a blocking, @HandThatFeeds. I do however choose to ignore their retaliatory report, when they could have easily been reported for edit warring before, but again, I digress as I refuse to have that permanent record on my account. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in my own defense, I withheld responding on the talk page because it seemed that you, @Logosx127, did not understand that the source was not removed whatsoever, as you have disregarded it seems before with other discussions which became prolonged. The information was restored back to its form before any of these issues ensued. The information in the versions has been sourced prior to your contribution, and then properly sourced thereafter. I am now more confused than ever. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, must be inevitable anyway since they opted to report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring after all of this. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a minute? Isn't there a discrepancy with that edit warring report? I reverted them 3 times on that article today, once on yesterday (the 27th), and then twice on the 24th? I did not go beyond the 3RR warning. Oh well, as I said, I'm not trying to take any bait and be blocked by responding to retaliation and as others stated, zealotry (not me, though later affirming). - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring does not specifically require violating WP:3RR. And frankly, Logosx reporting that while there's an ongoing discussion here smacks of WP:FORUMSHOP. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Thanks for enlightening me lol. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no forum shopping here. It is related to a different issue altogether. Here we are discussing about the dispute at the Eastern Catholic Churches and related articles and there is no edit warring in this case. I have purposefully distanced myself from editting articles in this case. I have been mostly editting only in the talk pages for a while. But there, at Oriental Orthodox churches, it is a totally different scenario. Lion is disregarding the talk page and opinion of other users and is actively edit warring. In my report, there is a reference to this report too. Meanwhile I have temporarily stopped editting in that particular article too as I am fed up of this. Logosx127 (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the same issue, you and LionHasSeen in an editing dispute. Hence forum shopping. It should've been handled here, rather than splitting up the admin actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Logosx127, your behavior across multiple articles and discussions has been an issue. Not to a degree that merits a block or any formal sanction, but just that you should probably avoid pushing the edit warring limit, avoid forum shopping (this is the second time recently), and be far more willing to concede to consensuses you don't like. You're making good contributions in other contexts, though, and your new article on the Indian Christian schism deserves high praise. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If I were to edit war, I wouldn't have any time left to do anything constructive. But I've been distancing myself from disputed articles. It's not because of any change of mind but I really don't have much time to waste in reverting back and forth and I find it ridiculous to do so. Logosx127 (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that, but are starting another one again with Oriental Orthodox Churches, again? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh So you're both still in an editing dispute with each other. At this point, I don't care who is right, both of you need to knock it off and follow dispute resolution or you're both going to wind up topic-banned (or just blocked). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've come to a compromise earlier; I forgot to simply remove my comment. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds, I thought to merely keep the peace even after they've written their prior statement; I let their revision stood, but corrected some much needed grammatical adjustments which could have been brought about as their contributions happens from a mobile device. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible content ownership at List of X-Men members page

    I joined Wikipedia in mid-March 2024 and started editing X-Men related pages yesterday and participating in recent discussion some of those pages and noticed so many ongoing discussions (also not archived) in List of X-Men members talk page. I read last two talk pages of it, which made me suspicious of ownership of content of the List of X-Men members page by @Hotwiki. Then I read last 500 edits of said page and made this report. I took me 1 day to make this report. I am new here and it is not my intention to Personal attack by mentioning so many users including @Hotwiki, just so you all don't feel that way. So below are 7 points of my report.

    • 1: (WP:OWN, WP:RS) @Hotwiki sometimes asks for references but sometimes he himself don't provide a reference. Also one time he called a reliable secondary source moot while doing this edit[176] on the basis of "This was already discussed before in the talk page, so that reference is moot. As for Fall of X, there's not a reference given to that issue." but you can search that that not any reference is declared moot in any discussion in Talk:List of X-Men members. He reverted the edit[177] done by @Tomahawk1221 on the basis of "Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source". He reverted the edits[178][179] having the same information (some more addition) done by @Ringardiumleviossa and @Lipshiz on the basis of "Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source". But when some of the information were removed[180] by @Sewnbegun on the basis of "Removing unreferenced content", he reverted[181] them on the basis of "Restored, I've read those issues before, and they do infact became trainees in those issues since they were working aside the X-Men in a field mission." I don't get why many editors need reference as per reliable sources for adding same information but one editor don't. That resulted to @Hotwiki making disruptive edit[182] on the basis of "these are unreferenced as well, we aren't going to cherry pick which unreferenced material to stay here here right?" Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis WP:RS - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[183] on the basis of No there's NO need to add Multiple references in a single info, if there's already a VALID/reliable reference posted.
      • 1.2: Reliable sources were finally provided regarding the above mentioned information in these edit[184] by @Sookenon.
    • 2: (WP:OWN, MOS:GRAMMAR) Another of the authoritative attitude is seen during simple changes like fixing basic grammar/grammatical errors or expanding sentences. He reverted[185] an edit done by @Khajidha to the previous version. Another similar edit[186] (on the basis of "Full stop is unnecessary because they are just words and not full sentence.") was reverted[187] by @Hotwiki on the basis of "its fine to add a period in table descriptions, especially the other descriptions have a period in them. We aren't to edit war with these simple changes, are we?". Lastly, he kept reverting[188][189][190][191] changes regarding some sentences in Subtitute X-Men teams section and only stopped until these edits[192][193] were made on the basis of "Fixing basic grammatical errors, double check before making any edits to it" and "Adding extra and suitable information won't hurt (Like the big ones added in the X-Force and X-Club)" respectively.
    • 3: (WP:OWN) One of the most interesting edit was done here[194] by @Hotwiki on the basis of "No need to state the obvious". He later himself made an edit[195] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of "fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as "Muir Island X-Men" thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute".
    • 4: (WP:OWN, WP:CON) @Hotwiki made this edit[196] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of "Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well" but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.
    • 5: (WP:OWN, WP:OVERCITE) An IP user added[197] months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit[198] on the basis of "Not all of those months are referenced." I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition[199] of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill.
    • 6: (WP:OWN, WP:RS) @Hotwiki agreed to one thing from above point that List of X-Men members page is not the list of names of members of X-Men when @Sewnbegun added[200][201][202] references to full names. You can clearly see that many of the names just had references added but some had changes made to them on the basis of those sources. Eventually those changes were also reverted[203] whole by him on the basis of "Again, you don't really need to add a reference to every single name, especially those who have a Wikipedia article. This is a list of X-Men members. Not list of names of X-Men characters". The question also arises why reverting those name which are clearly well sourced? because in fact these "sourced reverted names" were the only names not picked by from Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members. which was in consensus - You can confirm it by checking these edits[204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219] if you have time.
    • 7: (WP:OWN, WP:CON) @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits[220][221] regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of "Revert unnecessary changing of order" and "Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes." This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[222] but it was again reverted[223] on the basis of "Still no talkpage consensus" but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against).
      • 7.2: I wasn't going to mention above point since I think editors should wait for few days before making changes "as per talk page", but I did it to show you the more of the authoritative attitudes of Hotwiki as the same situation as above happened in this discussion Dark X-Men (2023) & Woofer. 2 were in favour (@Storm1221 and @Hotwiki) and 1 against (ToshiroIto7). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teedbunny (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You must notify users you are reporting on. Says so at the top of the page. Paradoctor (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already did. Thank you! Teedbunny (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gone in 60 seconds, eh? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See it again please. Teedbunny (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, I already did. Therefore the reference. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't understand the reference but should I notify all the users mentioned or the only user reported on? Teedbunny (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors whose conduct is being discussed here should be notified of such. Remsense诉 15:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me mention that There were TWO editors who were making drastic changes in the article. User:Ringardiumleviossa and User:Sewnbegun. Both are now blocked due to sockpuppetry and apparently they are connected. There's recently unusual activity from IP users who are making a ton of changes. These are already discussed in the talkpage of the article. I'm surprised that Teedbunny is bringing this up now? I'm not the one who reverted your most recent edit in the article. And Sewnbegun who I reported for sockpuppetry yesterday, is finally blocked today. Hotwiki (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ringardiumleviossa and this is how User:Sewnbegun was blocked. How am I taking ownership of the article, when clearly User:Ringardiumleviossa, User:Sewnbegun and a bunch of IP users making their 1st edit on Wikipedia, in the same article - was/were trying to manipulate the outcome of the article by jumping through different Ips/accounts. Hotwiki (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also can Teedbunny simplify what am I being accused here. Yes I reverted edits that were unreferenced. But what unreferenced material in the article did I include in the article?From February to March 2024, there were a lot of drastic changes coming from two editors (who are both apparently involved in a sockpuppetry). There were making so many drastic changes and I've tried my best to discuss everything in the talk page. When I added "names" in the article ([224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239]) it was from the article proposal of User:Ringardiumleviossa in the talk page or it was already in the article, I simply repeated names for consistency as several characters are mentioned more than twice. I don't recall anyone from the article, calling me out for unreferenced edits? Hotwiki (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for #5 (An IP user added months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit on the basis of "Not all of those months are referenced." I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill). I asked for references for the months, simply because there were too many months being added, and I was unsure, if those months were accurate anyway. At that time, the article was tagged at the top of the article, for needing more sources. Hotwiki (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for #7. ( @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of "Revert unnecessary changing of order" and "Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes." This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[290] but it was again reverted[291] on the basis of "Still no talkpage consensus" but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against). How is there already a consensus? beside me and Sewnbegun. The only editor that made another comment in the talkpage was Teedbunny. The IP user who originally made the changed - is a suspected sockpuppetry that is connected to Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun. I was waiting for more editors to make a comment, (not just one editor). Sewnbegun reverted it again right after Teedbunny posted a comment, like as if Teedbunny made a consensus for the article. And I just didn't see it as a consensus yet.Hotwiki (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for #4 (4: @Hotwiki made this edit[264] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of "Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well" but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.). What is the problem with that? Plenty of different editors in the past, have been bolding name of characters indicating that they are current members of the X-Men- without leaving a reference/citation for verification. I even addressed about this in the talkpage in its own section.[240] Hotwiki (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for 3 (One of the most interesting edit was done here[263] by @Hotwiki on the basis of "No need to state the obvious". He later himself made an edit[264] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of "fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as "Muir Island X-Men" thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute".) I don't see the issue of me adding the X-Men in section titles, and it was a non-issue if I remember correctly. Hotwiki (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, one more thing. List of X-Men members is now protected from persistent sockpuppetry until April 26, 2024. For those who are just seeing this, I hope you are aware of the sockpuppetry going on in that article in the last two months. I've done my best to cooperate with User:Ringardiumleviossa and User:Sewnbegun via talkpage of that article, even if both of them turned out to be the same person, that was also jumping through several IPs, in order to manipulate the outcome of that article. Hotwiki (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Teedbunny: how am I being called out here in ANI, yet you didn't mention the sockpuppetry suspicions towards @Sewnbegun: especially if you read the talkpage of that article. Hotwiki (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for 7, I stated it I think editors should wait for some more to get more editors to respond. You said " I just didn't see it as a consensus yet" because only two voted for it and one, who were you didn't. I must also point out why you didn't any see any consensus over Dark X-Men (2023) & Woofer here when clearly there were two in favour (including you) and 1 against? Reverts[241][242][243] were kept being done as per this discussion. Teedbunny (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all your reverts were unreferenced. There were many names which were perfectly sourced that were removed. Teedbunny (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you don't ignore the fact that in the last two months I was dealing with 2 registered editors (Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun) and several IP users involved with sockpuppetry, in that 1 article. If you have read the entire talk page, you would know I have tried my best to keep my cool and worked with those editors as much as I could, especially with Sewnbegun despite my suspicions of them being the same person which turned out to be right. Hotwiki (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also may I add, Sewnbegun was adding "references" to content that wasn't being challenged/questioned in the first place. No one was asking in that article for the name of Professor X, to be added by reference as his name was already in the article for more than ten years. As I explained in that article, a reference for the date/issue of membership was already enough. Hotwiki (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am talking about the changes based on sources like for example see Magneto's name. Teedbunny (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I also noticed that and prepared another report on him, but beat me ahead by doing sockpuppet investigation yesterday. I also noticed the above points I mentioned in this report regarding you too. Teedbunny (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you could have easily adressed this in the talkpage of that article or in my talkpage first, rather directly going to ANI. I haven't encountered you directly in the past, so this ANI report is comingoff as a surprise. Hotwiki (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it just me, or is that article a prime example of why WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are rules? Looking through the talk page, I see a great deal of debating what constitutes a real X-men member. If reliable secondary sources verify, then the debate could be settled by citing them. If no such sources exist, I question how such a list fits in with the rest of Wikipedia.
    In any case, while I agree that Hotwiki can come off as having slight WP:OWN leanings, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of sanction, and I also note that I cannot find a discussion from Teedbunny attempting to address this on Hotwiki's talk page. Also, this very long report doesn't make it easy to see at-a-glance what policies or guidelines Hotwiki is alleged to have broken, other than WP:OWN, which seems to me to be a weak claim. Rather, everyone seems to be operating in good faith, and so this situation seems like a good candidate for dispute resolution, not administrative intervention. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck, please just read the last point (7 and 7.2) carefully. Teedbunny (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having reread both 7 and 7.2, I continue to see no wrongdoing. There doesn't seem to be a consensus; there's Hotwiki who discussed at length their opinion, a sockpuppeteer whose opinion is rightly discounted, and you with a single comment. Attempting to make the change once with per talk page is well within WP:BRD. Hotwiki reverting is likewise part of BRD. Frankly, even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions, consensus is not a vote count. If there's still disagreement, perhaps posting a neutrally worded request to a related wikiproject would get a broader base of opinions. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this report is long which was the Main reason why I reported this to administrators.
    • Along with WP:OWN @Hotwiki has also possibly broken these:
      • WP:RS for point 1.
        • Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis WP:RS - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[244].
      • MOS:GRAMMAR for point 2.
      • WP:CON for points 4 (no consensus at that time at all but still edits were made) and 7.
      • WP:OWN leading indirect WP:OVERCITE for point 5 which too only primary sources (detailed reason is given above).
    Teedbunny (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm wondering why you're expending so much effort on digging up months-old edits when you could try talking it out with Hotwiki. In any case, responding to your points...
    • Point 1: While I agree this shows Hotwiki leaning towards OWN behavior, I disagree that this represents a serious breach of WP:RS. Sometimes people fail to include a source. It happens. I've done it. Tag it and move on. The example you gave directly above likewise seems to be avoiding the WP:OVERCITE you mention later on. Maybe it'd be better with two references, maybe not, but that's a content dispute, not a behavioral one.
    • Point 2: MOS:GRAMMAR: Hotwiki's edits there seem to me to support the MOS, and were therefore justified.
    • Point 4: That's not violating consensus. I read that as Hotwiki pointing to the talk page for their reasoning. Again, part of WP:BRD.
    • Point 5: I see no consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of all those sources. And again, I'm curious what you're looking for: In Point 1, you criticize Hotwiki for removing unnecessary material, but here you object to them leading to more references. I'd be okay with either, but you can't have it both ways.
    • Point 7: Not being Hotiwki, I won't speculate as to why the reverts were made. I will say that, glancing over that discussion, there were indeed 3 editors in good standing, with 2 opposed, 1 in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, Hotwiki alluded to WP:NODEADLINE, which is a policy-based argument of "Let's wait and see before we add it." I may be misunderstanding (this isn't my field) but even if that was against consensus, one violation seven months ago does not demonstrate ongoing disruption.
    Teedbunny, I'll be frank. In my view, there is no demonstration of any ongoing disruption. I strongly recommend you try talking to Hotwiki if their behavior is suboptimal, or otherwise following WP:DR. I also submit that it will be far easier than continuing this thread. Your reliance on tenuous or dated evidence makes this seem more like a grudge, which could lead to a WP:BOOMERANG if it continues. You seem passionate about this topic, so I hope you'll direct your energies to improving the encyclopedia; spending them at ANI would not seem to be be a productive use of your time. I've said enough in this thread, and will bow out and await other editors' input. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I will take in consideration in the future. Teedbunny (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to second EducatedRedneck that this doesn't seem to be an urgent issue immediately requiring administrator intervention. Q T C 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues should be discussed on the talk page before they're brought to ANI. This page isn't for disagreements on sourcing or reverts you don't like. The exception is that it is disruptive to revert if your only reason is that the previous version is "stable" or that someone didn't ask for consensus in advance. Removing unreferenced content is allowed, and best practice is not to add anything unless it's accompanied by a secondary source. Sock edits can always be reverted without question after the editor is conclusively determined to be a sock, although they're no longer subject to indiscriminate reverting if another editor restores the edit. Finally, the entries should not be based on comic book references per WP:PRIMARY policy #5: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Editing to preserve a policy violation can be disruptive, but it should be discussed before we call it disruptive. I second everything that EducatedRedneck said in their initial response above. This should probably be closed so the issue can be discussed on the talk page, and this doesn't need to be an ANI complaint unless discussion fails and disruptive behaviors continue afterward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien, do the list of X-Men members need more reliable secondary sources? Teedbunny (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sca's jokes on WP:FPC

    36 hours in, and no consensus for anything, really, has emerged. Except, perhaps, that FatCat96 could be a mite less hasty with the ANI button and that Cremastra's dark day has not yet dawned. (non-admin closure) ——Serial Number 54129 13:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I suggest that Sca be topic banned from WP:Featured picture candidates. Sca has been making jokes on FPC instead of using it as a place to usefully collaborate with others. This is not a new practice, he has been doing it for several years, and despite being banned from WP:ITN/C twice for the same reason, he persists. Some examples include here, here, here, and here. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I've deleted two small humorous comments on nominations (not those of FatCat69) currently listed at WP:FPC, leaving 11 serious and constructive comments of mine. I suppose user FatCat69 might feel ill-disposed toward me because of (serious) critical comments I've posted about a few of his nominations, and I suggest that he and I agree not to engage in any continuing disputation, but seek to cooperate from now on. (Further, I would agree to a "no contact" direction covering the two of us.) -- Sca (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I really don’t mind the criticism. After all, instructive criticism is how things get done. That said, it’s the jokes that bother me, I don’t think that FPC (and other areas) is the right place for joking, as it can sometimes come off as a bit disrespectful. I usually don’t mind humor, as long as it’s kept respectful and in the right place and time. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think the jokes are funny. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support no contact as this report seems unnecessary and is likely indicative of larger beef. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A German with a sense of humor, and an American without. The world has gone mad, I tell you, MAD! Paradoctor (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OP, did you make any attempt to discuss your concerns with Sca? It appears that you skipped that step and jumped directly to proposing a tban. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if a FPC topic ban is needed yet, but it is disappointing that Sca appears to be repeating at another Main Page venue the same kind of behavior that got them partially blocked from WP:ITN/C. It certainly would not help any future appeal of that sanction. They previously promised to regard ITN as "serious business, not a venue for jokes or personal comments"; perhaps they should take the same attitude towards FPC as well. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve got to be honest, but it’s because of Sca’s persistent nasty behavior that I have pondered on the concept of no longer contributing to FPC. It’s not just my nominations that he posts snarky comments on, it’s everyone. Very seldomly does he post actually useful comments. Unless he can get his act together, I feel that FPC would be a much better and more welcoming place without him. I also feel that the other users in this conversation are wholly ignoring the fact that Sca was blocked from ITN twice for this type of behavior. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that they are not treating the nominations with the seriousness you'd like to see, but it seems extreme to describe that as persistent nasty behavior, as it seems pretty mild. Like others, I'm wondering why you didn't raise this with them at their talkpage instead of going straight to ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FatCat96 did raise the issue with them here on January 18 but was immediately reverted by Sca. A less confrontational tone from FatCat may have had more success, perhaps. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that wasn't an attempt to discuss so much as it was a belligerent ultimatum. OP should have tried a more collegial approach. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I chuckled at a few of these. If users get blocked for making harmless jokes, it's dark day for Wikipedia. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should read WP:Humor. It states:
    • Humor is sometimes misinterpreted
    • Irresponsible humor damages Wikipedia's credibility
    • Not everyone is looking for humor
    • What one may find hilarious, another may find offensive
    I believe that Sca's jokes fall into several of these categories. These may not be true for everyone, but one should certainly remain mindful of these (which I think it's pretty obvious Sca does not) when commenting these "humorous" comments. One could easily misinterpret Sca's "humorous" comments as hateful, rude, or offensive. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 05:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:HUMOUR is an essay, and an absurdly stringent one at that. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know… I think it makes some pretty valid points. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 12:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Mann Mann's vandalism on Central Asia

    I gave Mann Mann his first warning in edit history, second warning in my own user chat history, third warning on his own page. I noticed an entry that said Central Asia were predominantly Iranian before the 10th century. In the reference, this was a claim made by Ferdowsi in Shahnameh and only valid south of Amu Darya(disputed if it is even in Central Asia.) So I fixed that. That's the reference keeps trying to revert back to, it is from Ferdowsi in the reference and only refers to south of Amu Darya, not ALL of Central Asia. I added my own contributions towards Botai Culture and Tiele people. Mann Mann just keeps vandalizing ALL of my well-referenced edits by reverting. He should be at least banned from Central Asia and other related pages. TheLastUbykh (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a content dispute, see the discussion on the Help Desk. [248] TheLastUbykh has already been asked to read WP:VANDAL, and to discuss the matter on the article talk page, apparently to no effect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already started a talk in regarding that source by Ferdowsi. That should resolve that part.
    This is also about Mann Mann's vandalism of my other edits in that page. He down righted deleted my contributions in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele.
    "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. " TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheLastUbykh, you started a discussion (not a good faith discussion, but at least you started one) at Talk:Central Asia, then immediately restored the disputed content, posted at Help Desk, posted a warning at User talk:Mann Mann, then opened this thread, as well as repeating it at WP:AIV and User talk: Michael D. Turnbull. Mann Mann hasn't even edited since you started the discussion on the article talk page; you need to wait and give other editors time to respond before escalating matters so rapidly. (By the way, "warnings" in edit summaries are meaningless.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I just did what he did. He didn't start a talk in regarding my edits either.
    And unlike him, I am new to this and went to help desk to proceed. I don't see how that's not in good faith. TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheLastUbykh, wait for Mann Mann to respond at the article talk page and work out the content dispute there. Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheLastUbykh, you also failed to notify Mann Mann of this discussion. Please go to the top of this page, read the large banner, and follow its instructions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did leave a message to his username talk page. TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheLastUbykh, read the red banner at the top of the page. Follow those instructions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I did that after reading your first post. TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you said you'd left a message on Mann Mann's talk page, you had, but not the proper ANI notification. You posted that to their talk page at the same time that I repeated the statement about the instructions at the top of the page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) The OP had discussed this topic earlier at the help desk, and I haven't been impressed with how they've been navigating the problem. What started off as a content dispute over the reliability of some sources soon devolved into an accusation of vandalism against Mann Mann, but looking at some of the target's relevant edits, such as this one as well as this one, they were concerned about possible original research and other policy contraventions, something that is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    there is no original research, shahnameh by ferdowsi is the original historical document for the claim. keep going back to references between arabic and western researchers after 10th century, it keeps going back to this 'historical' document. the references they use, goes back to those same arabic and western researchers with this claim of Central Asia being Iranian majority. What we discuss is that Iranian languages eventually replaced Chinese as the franca lingua due to trade. And that they were Iranian-speaking, not Iranian majority besides lands south of Amu Darya, which I included in my edit that would include Sogdians.
    this was an easy discussion on a classroom setting but I don't have my phd(or a phd) to easily recognize to all these sources. so the time strain keeps getting bigger than the scope I initially thought it would be so I am questioning my commitment level at this point. I might add those to the talk page and wash my own hands off until someone nerdier comes along.
    anyways, there is no reason still for the removal of my Botai and Tiele contributions. that I considered a vandalism. he didn't just dispute those parts but removed my contributions unrelated to Ferdowsi. TheLastUbykh (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not our own conclusions. You added info under citations that did not support it. This is still WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    there is no personal conclusions, only a question of use of primary or secondary sources. secondary resources in academia, especially when those secondary resources use references that were secondary resources themselves from a time with less academic integrity.
    again, this claim goes back to shahnameh, through following the references and going back to other articles and books published in 19th and 20th century that use shahnameh as a reference to try to push this claim.
    shahnameh is the primary source. the main historical document of this long-standing and wrong claim, that has no prior basis before 10th century and contradicts earlier Chinese historical records that are also primary sources. period. this is what we study in our eastern asian studies departments. it is "paris is the capital of France" in the current mainstream Academic consensus. TheLastUbykh (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're proving my point. Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Besides personal attacks, TheLastUbykh is also misusing sources per [249]. You don't need to know the Wiki rules to know that misusing sources is bad. WP:OUCH? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My reverts on Central Asia were justified. In the first revert, I restored the most clean/acceptable revision before the mess (including your edits). I did not restore my revision and I even restored the correct contribution that I reverted.[250][251] In the second revert, my mistake was not writing a better edit summary to convince you taking your concerns to Talk:Central Asia, but the revert itself was the right decision. On the other hand, you started edit warring[252] and launched a crusade/quest by calling me vandal.[253][254][255] You even used log-in/log-out method (editing as IP) to push your edits[256] and targeting me.[257] Was I harsh? Maybe. But your contributions show some kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also, your report and your comments are just WP:BOOMERANG. Yeah, I was a vandal since August 2012[258] that you discovered me. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway, I don't edit/patrol Central Asia for a while because I'm not interested in working with someone who doesn't even know how to open a discussion without harassment and personal attack. I let other editors reach a consensus. --Mann Mann (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very concerned that TheLastUbykh is trying to justify their edits, which means they will likely do it again, and thus get reported to ANI again. In these type of topics, we commonly have new users who make some sort of disruption and get blocked. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX

    I wanted to ask whether User:Newimpartial exceeded their editing restriction by participating in a BLPN discussion about Tim Hunt's alleged sexism or sexist comments about women in science and making more than two comments per day.[259][260][261][262] This particular controversy would seem to fall under GENSEX as raised earlier at ANI by another user.[263] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: I'm missing a diff [264] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last diff comes more than 24 hours after your first diff, though. Newimpartial (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but within 24 hours of the others. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they may however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments
    Your links appear to be specifically two comments left in that discussion. And then two short replies to responses from others to those original comments. That appears to be perfectly within the wording of their editing restriction. SilverserenC 02:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the GENSEX topic ban, a separate restriction in itself? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't that GENSEX ban regarding LGBT topics, particularly transgender topics and gender? Was it really meant to cover anything involving women and sexism in addition? Would that also include literally anything involving women's or men's rights? Feminism? Ect? I don't believe it was meant to be that broad, unless I'm misreading the prior discussion. SilverserenC 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I asked. WP:GENSEX expressly references Gamergate (harassment campaign), which was about sexism in gaming. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's...complicated. After doing some digging through the WP:ARCA archives, I came across a GamerGate clarification request from March 2015 about whether the topic of campus rape would fall under the then GamerGate discretionary sanctions. After reading the arbiter views from that request, and the two article revisions linked BLPN discussion I could see this content dispute plausibly being considered within the GENSEX content area, as it is dealing with remarks that were described as sexist, which would be considered a gender-related dispute.
    However, despite the text of GENSEX stating that Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people are the scope of the sanction, it's not immediately obvious from the four listed clarifications in the motion to transfer GamerGate to the GENSEX shell case, nor my own personal experience editing within the content area that this would be in scope. Two of the clarifications (1 and 3) deal with transgender related disputes, and the other two (2 and 4) deal with disputes relating systemic bias and the Gender Gap Task Force, and it's not immediately obvious from skimming the text just how broadly we interpret the term gender-related dispute or controversy. By and large most of the disruption we see in GENSEX is restricted to content relating to trans and non-binary people and topics, with some spill-over to GamerGate and related articles. The last non-trans, non-GamerGate GENSEX sanction I can quickly spot in WP:AELOG was the semi-protection of Manosphere and Men Going Their Own Way in June and July 2020 respectively. If other editors agree with my reading of the 2015 clarification request, I'd say that this TBAN violation is a plausibly an accidental one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have an opinion on whether this violates any specific editing restriction, but I think it would be odd to say that content related to debates about systemic sexism don't fall under gender-related disputes or controversies. Restricting the scope to the four clarifications would seem to open up a pretty big loophole in the topic, even if it's in a subsection that doesn't see a lot of admin action. CarringtonMist (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with CarringtonMist, I didn't participate in any arbcom case and as a non-admin I don't have to be that familiar with the details. But I've always understood that it was decided in the GamerGate arbcom case that because it was primarily about harassment arising due to commentary sexism and portrayal of cis-women in games with criticism over feminism etc; with a less focus on other issues like LGB, race etc and other so called social justice issues, arbcom wanted to ensure that if similar issues cropped up in other areas they would be covered.

    I mention cis-women and LGB, because AFAIK at the time there was only very little focus on transgender and non binary characters. So I'm fairly sure the concern was about issues like misogyny, sexism and the portrayal of women etc with the gender related wording and little to do with transgender issues.

    Eventually the GamerGate decision was merged with the Sexology one which had dealt with transgender issues since it was decided it would be simpler to deal with them with one DS area.

    It does seem to be true there has been little dispute outside of transgender related issues recently, but that applies even when we consider GamerGate until the recent blowup with Sweet Baby. Note there was a recent case which dealt with the restriction on MGTOW [265] but outside of that from what I saw in 2023 until this year, the only non transgender related example was 3-5 stuff all to do with Brianna Wu.

    Also I had a quick look at the comments here [266] seem to agree with my view about fears this sort of stuff would spread to other areas. I think the current extreme focus on transgender issues is sort of reflective of the modern world especially US-UK but Sweet Baby shows it's not the only possible area where stuff can happen. While Sweet Baby might be fairly tied to GamerGate, I don't think it's actually that easy to separate these sort of sexism issues even if the particular case of Tim Hunt is maybe somewhat disconnected. However it's the sort of thing where I suspect there could easily be a similar blow up especially if things had been different e.g. more recent, in the US and the person who made the comments had doubled down on them.

    Nil Einne (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I looked again at the text of WP:GENSEX before posting, and didn't see anything relevant to the Tim Hunt discussion at WP:BLPN.
    (Also, I don't know whether GoodDay intended an oblique reference to me by raising his question at ANI, but if he did, that seems to me to be worth discussing.) Newimpartial (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was for myself. As I was debating on whether or not to get involved in the content being discussed. GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is considered covered by GENSEX, I propose that rather than sanction NewImpartial we narrow their topic ban to "transgender issues, broadly defined". To the best of my knowledge, the issues that resulted in the topic ban did not extend beyond that, and I see no reason why they can’t participate in this debate and others like it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. "Transgender issues, broadly defined" is broad enough. Mathglot (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as well. The edits are plausibly in violation of the "GamerGate part" of GENSEX, but that's also clearly not what NewImpartial's topic ban was actually about. Endwise (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support an explicit narrowing of the topic ban as described above. The conduct that warranted the ban was in a specific area, and it doesn't make sense to impose a rule more broad than that. Edit-warring and bludgeoning behavior on articles about trans or anti-trans activists should not disqualify an editor from, e.g., wiki-gnoming edits to biographies of long-dead cis women mathematicians. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support narrowing the topic-ban. None of the discussion when the topic-ban was placed touched on any part of the topic area except transgender issues, so a ban that goes beyond that seems punitive. --Aquillion (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose any action - I'm not certain if the page-in-question falls under the GenSex area. PS - My question was based on whether or not I wanted to get involved with the topic being discussed. GoodDay (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, because the whole Tim Hunt discussion on Wikipedia has been a shambles dominated by forum-hopping, unpleasantness, bludgeoning, inability to listen, and attempts to get the other side banned. And to be clear I'm talking about behaviour on both sides of the argument. It has been so unpleasant that I dropped out, for fear of landing up here myself. Regardless of the good or bad motivation of the current ANI, it is vital that ANI is not permitted to become a weapon in a content dispute. Elemimele (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Elemimele, I shouldn't have peeked, I am on a break mainly because of this toxic environment. Though I did wonder myself whether perhaps a warning was warranted that this was a violation of the topic ban, albeit inadvertent. As I note above, ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition. Intervention is badly needed to fix this toxic editing before it results in an arbcom case. WCMemail 13:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition Astonishing. --JBL (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose action except for Support narrowing of topic ban. I voted against imposing this topic ban in the first place but if it's going to exist it should at least be targeted a little more narrowly than this. Loki (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose action except for Support narrowing of topic ban. There's enough ambiguity here that if there is a TBAN violation, it's an entirely unintentional one. I also would support narrowing Newimpartial's topic ban to just "transgender issues, broadly construed" as that is more representative of the specific issues raised in the discussion that lead to it being placed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems pretty clear that participating in a discussion about Tim Hunt's sexism allegations fall squarely within Gender-related disputes or controversies. That's been the scope of the topic area as far back as the Gamergate arbcom case, which included any gender-related dispute or controversy as a separate item from Gamergate itself, along with people associated with either of them. There's also a 2022 ARCA initiated by Sideswipe9th that confirms the scope includes non-trans/nonbinary people, and those four numbered points are only there to preserve previous clarifications rather than being the whole scope. That said, I agree it seems plausible that this was a misunderstanding by Newimpartial. Absent any evidence of further violations, or that the edits themselves were disruptive, I don't think any sanction stronger than a reminder/warning is needed. As a side note, if Newimpartial would like to appeal part or all of their sanction, they should make a specific request in it's own discussion thread. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with others that this discussion is inside the locus of the CTOP, but also I think Newimpartial's behavior in the discussion has been exemplary and I think that the natural response to this pair of facts is the narrowing of the topic-ban. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support reminder/warning at most. Oppose narrowing of the topic ban. Broadly per the rationale provided by The Wordsmith, above. Clearly within scope of the topic ban; and reasonably expected to be understood to be so. Unconvinced that skirting the fringes (from the inside) should result in reducing the scope. Behaviour in the linked diffs is verging towards that which resulted in the ban. Not particularly enamoured of the tone nor personal focus of this diff. But do not believe that the evidence presented warrants sanctions beyond a reminder/warning. Rotary Engine talk 01:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, Rotary Engine. I have pasted the entirety of the diff you cite into the collapsed section here:
    content of diff Rotary Engine linked juat above

    Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that "Hunt is not sexist" beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here. I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the straw goat question whether Hunt has "hindered any female scientist in her career" - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell. Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of WP:NPOV and also WP:BLP. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the WP:BALANCE of WP:HQRS, and the current article appears to so so.

    I would appreciate, as a neurodivergent editor, if someone could explain to me what about the tone or personal focus of the diff seems problematic. Is it the use of the second person in the first two paragraph, for example? Or my word choice at There simply isn't a reason? I am here to learn and to do better. Newimpartial (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your tone was proportionate, I think I would tone it similarly if I were you. People should be confronted over disruptive editing if softer means fail to carry the point across, which certainly has been the case here. NicolausPrime (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a stretch to put Tin Hunt's topic under a topic ban on GENSEX that was born from trans related topics. It seems that most here feel that the edits in question were not a violation of the tban and I suspect it's because most editors, like I do, see a big gap between the topics that resulted in the tban and the Tim Hunt topic. My proposed solution would be to say the GENSEX topic doesn't cover the Tim Hunt discussion. Alternatively perhaps the GENSEX topic should be split up a bit. Denying an accusation of sexism is quite a bit different than arguing if someone/thing is transphobic. Springee (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that GENSEX should be split up just in general. Disruption about feminism, feminist issues, and sexism is not the same thing as disruption about LGBT issues. Editors with a history of disruption in one area can certainly contribute productively to the other. Loki (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Springee I don't think the whole of Tim Hunt falls under GENSEX; just the bits that relate to a gender-related dispute or controversy. And, for mine, arguing if someone is sexist is very similar to arguing if someone is transphobic.
    @LokiTheLiar A well phrased request at ARCA might result in such a split; though I would consider that on more than a few occasions, editors disruptive w.r.t. the feminism aspects are also disruptive w.r.t. the sexuality aspects. Rotary Engine talk 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Warning I've always considered based on the wording that contentious topic restriction is intended to apply to stuff like this, and so would think any topic ban from the whole area is the same. I have no comment on whether it's need, and if someone wants to ask arbcom to clarify/limit it to only the Gamergate style stuff I have no problem with that. Likewise I agree it might have made sense to limit NewImpartial's topic ban to only gender-identity and sexuality related issues, but that wasn't what we did. So until any of this happens, NewImpartial needs to stay away from the dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Selo007 are using talk pages to attack BLPs

    Selo007 (talk · contribs)

    This does not contribute to the project--Trade (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indef This person seems a key example of WP:NOTHERE - Wikipedia is not a place to obsess over microscopic details of photographs of BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I used Verifiability (V) and Neutral point of view (NPOV)
      unlike the editors
      Im currently requestion a second opinion based on bias Selo007 (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We used verifiability and NPOV. You used BLP violations. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Still not blocked--Trade (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed for competency, IDHT, RGW, using WIkipedia as a forum, and imagining that Wikipedia evaluates sources based on close examination of someone's tattoos. This is a regular admin action, not an arbitration enforcement action. Acroterion (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Rhain, Aquillion and Dumuzid missuing power to shut down peoples opinions.

    Missuse of [[267]] and [[268]] On [[269]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selo007 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignoring fact given by other non elevated editors.
    Using non verifiable information.
    Using hearsay.
    Taking one side.
    Refuse to listen to other side.
    Dont add factual information.
    Locks talkpage so people cant dispute editors (not just me)

    Would like a third opinion to check without relying on opinions from a newsarticle that is written by a arguably biased person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selo007 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) @Selo007, you are required to notify editors when you take them to ANI. I have done so for you. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, do you have any diffs that prove these editors have violated policies? Making a new section will not help with you potentially being blocked. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 01:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its all covered by people in talkpage
    Its very long to list all of them
    Some things include adding that harrassment started with attacks from SBI against an individual called Kabrutus, with evidence.
    And that the harrassmentclaims againt Kotaku can not be verified and instead added as facts. Selo007 (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead they insist on using quotes from a journalist that has a questionable racist agenda (evidence) and that tries to harass and doxx people for writing hitpieces. Selo007 (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you Selo007 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I have so much power that I can't keep track of it all, because I don't recall being able to lock talk pages! I am pretty powerful when it comes to hearsay, though, if I do say so myself. The gravamen of the complaint here seems to be that I like to stick to Wikipedia's policies of preferring reliable secondary sources, and to that accusation, I admit my guilt. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I take the blame. I forgot to mention that to him Trade (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trade, that's okay! They should've read the guidelines and huge banner anyways. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (reposting because I accidentally made half of ANI smalltext haha)[reply]
    For the record, I am not an administrator and (obviously) was not the one who ECPed the talk page; although I queryed ArbCom to make sure it could happen, it occurred independently of that. --Aquillion (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's nothing actionable here, and this report by Selo007 appears to be an abuse of process that frankly merits WP:BOOMERANG sanctioning. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At it's core there is an fundamental misunderstanding on how Wikipedia articles are supposed to work and how RS works on Wikipedia Trade (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, I've never interacted with Selo007 before directly, but I'd agree a boomerang of some sort (at least a topic-ban from this topic area) is called for based on their repeated BLP violations, eg. [270][271][272]; they seem to be basing this on YouTube videos (the second-to-last diff) and Twitter posts (the last diff). This isn't great either. --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to block me, im not that active anyways.
    All i want is for third opinion to take a second look at that wikipedia page since its riddled with reliable sources (Kotaku is case to case and the one writing the article should be taken under consideration when the person its doxxing, harrassing, asking people for fights and is using questionable racist slurs)
    • Using hearsay such as "Sweet Baby's employees faced harassment and attempted doxing in response to the backlash," when there is no evidence of such its a breach of NPOV and V.
    • "Others who faced harassment included Kotaku's reporter who first highlighted the backlash" also hearsay and breach of NPOV and V.
    • "Ash Parrish felt the Discord members were not attempting to "create meaningful change for their cause" but were "simply there for the vibes, rancid though they are" again, should be questioned if its a reliable source when Parrish ha admitted she writes articles based on the own agenda even if its not true, even going against her editors But i guess you will just use BPL to shut that down.
    • "Bryant Francis urged Steam and Discord to clarify their policies to avoid similar incidents and further harassment." again, no evidence of harrassment.
    • There’s no mention it started with Sweet Baby inc employee Chris Kindred starting an actual online harassment campaign to cancel the Steam Sweet Baby Inc. Detected group to get them shut down and attacking an individual to harm them.
    • There is no mention of Chris Kindreds twitter account getting blocked by Twitter for said harrassment.
    Selo007 (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can assure you, this noticeboard is well aware of the article. The examples you're referring to are not "hearsay", and they do have "evidence": the references. Wikipedia is not a courtroom. We don't need to see examples of harassment to determine if someone was actually harassed (that would be original research); if reliable sources say they were, then we say they were. The same goes for Kindred's activities: if they are detailed in reliable secondary sources, then they will likely be detailed on Wikipedia as well; until then, there is no place for that information here.
    If you feel the article is unbalanced or incorrect, that's fine, but unless you can point to actionable changes based on policy and guidelines—and especially supported by reliable sources—then there's nothing to be done. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs; it is just here to report information as the sources do. If those sources are wrong, it's not our job to correct them. Nor is it our place to make claims about other people, no many how strongly you disagree with their tattoos or personal tweets. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your own page Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering
    The writer of the Kotaku article is very biased.
    Questionable sources also says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.
    Any reliable sources that people try to add are shut down by the same editors of the page that is beeing critisized.
    When one is added, they want another, moving the goalposts. Selo007 (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And where exactly, beyond some forum for drool-covered semi-literate conspiracy theorists, would we find evidence that Kotaku content is "widely acknowledged as extremist"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isnt Kotaku supposed be "case by case" and not Kotaku as a whole.
    The writer of the article is known for having extremist views.
    WOuld like to be clear im not for extremism be it right or left. Selo007 (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please either provide actual verifiable evidence, citing published reliable sources, that either Kotaku, or one of its contributors, is "widely acknowledged as extremist" or withdraw the allegation immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say saying "you cant be racist against white people" is quite an extreme opinion. 2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion is not a "published reliable source". – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Rhain, says, of course, but substantively, this is actually a known opinion, and often provokes outrage without full understanding. The basic concept is that while people can be racially prejudiced against white people, the lack of a systemic power structure means it is not 'racism.' No one has to agree with that, but I would not describe it as an extreme opinion. A fuller discussion can be found here:[273]. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SergeWoodzing repeated incivility at Talk:Where is Kate?

    I've stopped editing this topic area, but I can't help notice SergeWoodzing's comments at Talk:Where is Kate? are breaching civility policy and have been downright rude and unconstructive. SergeWoodzing has not edited the article once, but has posted several talkpage comments including:

    1. Shame on all of you who have tried to exert your own prissy importance over the Princess of Wales...The article must be deleted if you all have a single bone of decency and propriety in your bodies. With this article, English Wikedia descended to the level of the tackiest, sleaziest, most deplorable and digusting tabloid press. Shame on you who did that! (source, a comment later repeated in the DRV discussion)
    2. Oppose all of this. Delete this article! One brief paragraph in the article on the princess will suffice, rather than all this shameful disrespectful gossip fanaticism. (source, in reply to a requested move)
    3. The existence of this article is a horrifying embarrassment to Wikipedia! The question has been answered. The article title is obsolete and reads like some sort of nasty BLP harrassment, a persecution of the ill woman covered. WAKE UP PEOPLE and change this NOW! (source)

    The emphases are in the original. Were it not for the third comment having been posted today, suggesting continued disruption, I would not have felt compelled to file this ANI.

    I respect that SergeWoodzing is a highly experienced editor. Their concerns with the article are not only valid, but have been expressed several times in different venues by a broad cross-section of editors. The article is currently pending deletion review, after which it will most likely return to AfD. Nonetheless, these repeated comments feel unnecessarily uncivil and disruptive to editors working on the article in good faith.

    Insofar as this topic area is concerned, SergeWoodzing is WP:NOTHERE. Consider, for example, the second comment above: saying 'delete' in an RM discussion is just unhelpful, and also doesn't square with their third comment on the article's title. SergeWoodzing is experienced enough to know that these comments are best expressed at AfD, and general shaming isn't constructive, let alone when it is repeated multiple times. To that effect, I'd like to suggest a topic ban on Where is Kate? and the article talk page, while encouraging the editor to contribute, in a civil manner, to any future AfD or related process concerning the article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kind of hesitant to get on someone for being too vocal about raising valid BLP concerns, but SergeWoodzing's outbursts are becoming unhelpful WP:OWNership. That said, I'm not sure a topic ban is super necessary while the deletion discussions are ongoing. Others may disagree with my take here, but I don't get the feeling that the impact of his actions is actually disrupting the process in any significant way other than perhaps being annoying to read. @SergeWoodzing: -- you've made your position sufficiently clear. Please tone it down and maintain civility. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I never could have dreamed of experiencing anything so embarrassing and disagreeable and shameful, after all these years of being a proud contributor, as the way English Wikipedia has adopted the same methods and tone as the sleaziest tabloids in dealing - with the utmost disrespect - with the Princess of Wales and continuing intentionally to do so after she disclosed that she is seriously ill. To my knowledge I have never attacked any user by name, having given my opinion about shame to be taken at will by whomever chooses to to feel targeted and ignored by anyone who feels faultless. I believe that any article like Where is Kate? about a living person, no matter whom, is clearly denigrating and must be deleted without further delay. Aware of stretching text guidelines with capital letters and bold type, in my desparation to get all the many good users to react and act, I am willing to apologize sincerely for that part of it. I feel no need to comment again on those articles beyond these words. Whatever more I might have to say can never have a more constructive effect that what I already have tried to do. If it can be considered disruptive to object as vehemently as possible (i.e. without personal attacks or foul language) to very serious BLP problems, that is beyond my comprehension of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's most important rules. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS the fact that I have not otherwise participated on these articles or talk pages, not even read most it all, has only been due to my abject fear, if seeing more than I already had, that I would be driven even more crazy than this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so that I don't come across as sneaky or underhanded, I wish to put on the record that I thanked SergeWoodzing for edit number 3 above. I am no royalist (my genuine first reaction on seeing this article was to ask, "Kate who?"), but I too am embarrassed to be associated with an encyclopedia that has such an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Is this a pattern or an isolated incident? Paradoctor (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Talk:Where is Kate? has a total of six comments by SergeWoodzing. None of them violate WP:CIVIL or anything else. I understand that it might be upsetting to know that someone on the internet disagrees with you, but six comments is pretty reasonable by comparison with many cases reported here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the 'Where is Kate?' article is both a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy and an unmitigated crock of shite, it would be grossly improper to sanction anyone who points this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps they should get a Royal barnstar? Bon courage (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I really don't get this obsession with British royalty by Americans, which is the only thing I can think of that both led to this article being created and to it being kept at AfD. Surely you/they got rid of kings about 250 years ago, and we Brits should be the only ones bothered about them? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) P. S. I remember visiting America when the dispute between Charles and Diana came to light and those few people who believed me when I said that I didn't know either of them personally thought that I must have an opinion about the issue.[reply]
      Yes it's certainly the Americans' fault when your favorite family acts suspiciously and your tabloid culture subsequently makes a spectacle of it. They should really know better than to pay attention to you. The untold death wreaked in the name of that family really was all so long ago, it's just terrible they're now being gossiped about on the internet. 2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865 (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Gossip about them all you like on the Internet, but that doesn't make what you are gossiping about a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. And, as I said above, they are far from my favourite family. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • SergeWoodzing is being vocal but is not being disruptive and no action is needed.—Alalch E. 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remarks complained about all seem to be fair comment to me. The proper place for an article such as this is in a tabloid newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. All that is displayed by SergeWoodzing is a bit of passion for maintaining some sort of quality standards in Wikipedia – which is surely a desirable quality in any editor. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock/meat-puppetry and COI concerns regarding User:Guswen

    This SPI has been open for a couple weeks, and while I'd normally be inclined to let the specialists in such investigations get to it when they get to it, there is a new COI concern that, I believe, makes the situation more pressing and also suitable for having attention called to it here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to sock-puppetry and COI issues, there's also recent edit-warring going on at Assembly theory (history). I second the request for administrator attention! --JBL (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't this be resolved by a clerk endorsing the CU request at the SPI? Or by a CU looking at it without that, even. Any clerk or CU reading this? The SPI was opened two weeks ago, but digging into the history, I see that it has unfortunately only been marked "A user has requested CheckUser" for a couple of days, so it's probably not surprising no clerk has gotten to it yet. Bishonen | tålk 18:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    I had the faint hope that while the alleged socks argued with each other on the SPI, it might distract them from edit-warring at assembly theory and filibustering each other on the article talk. But no such luck. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LeeWeathers1986AV reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

    Disruptive editing; edit warring; uploading logos with no source or licensing info. Initially reported at WP:AIV but rebuffed.

    Logo examples: [274] [275] [276]

    Reversions of my removal of said logos: [277] [278] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    More sourceless logos: [279] [280] And they're refusing to respond to my warnings on their talk page. I think this user's WP:NOTHERE. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those logos can be tagged {{PD-textlogo}}. He is overusing the thank function, which is causing friction, so I left him a note about this. PhilKnight (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick

    About a month ago, as an outcome of an ANI thread, User:Thomas B was page-blocked with strong consensus from pages Tim Hunt, Talk:Tim Hunt, Online shaming, Talk:Online shaming for edit warring, stonewalling, bludgeoning, battleground behavior, and forum shopping over the topic of Tim Hunt's 2015 controversy.

    Unfortunately, after the blocking and a monthly hiatus, the first edit Thomas B made to Wikipedia was the creation of yet another thread about Tim Hunt, for the second time on WP:BLPN already. The thread resulted in another editor getting reported to ANI.

    Comments made by Thomas B indicate an intention to continue participation and failure to understand why own behavior is disruptive. Here's two examples: [281] "I won't be participating too actively in any further discussion." and [282] "I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually perfectly fine." (boldings mine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolausPrime (talk • contribs) 20:04 27 March 2024 (UTC)

    He wasn't banned, he was blocked from 4 pages. Schazjmd (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Article_ban_or_page_ban uses the term "page ban", but I may be missing something so I changed this as you suggested. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have missed the blocking policy. Note that the notice on his talk page says "blocked", not "banned". Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to get around his block. As such, both the quotes supplied seem reasonable to me. How is his participating in the discussion at BLPN disruptive? Has he reverted anyone (or was accusing him of edit warring a mistake)? Could you elaborate on the forum shopping accusation?
    I can see an argument for bludgeoning, however; Thomas B had 20 replies out of 60 comments at the time of this post. More to the point, in his opening statement to the BLPN thread, he writes, For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this [change], I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.. That sounds to me like it's very close to WP:PROXYING. Combined with their refusal to listen to other editors telling them that what they're doing is bad, I think an argument could be made for their editing being disruptive. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it's quite that simple. The original proposal was for a topic page ban, explicitly, with at my count 9 !votes in support and 3 in opposition. When the discussion was closed, however, it was closed as a "block", despite the proposal having been for a ban and seemingly gained limited consensus for doing so. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm missing something. The section you linked was for a page ban. To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be page-banned from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence. (Bolding mine.) Which, granted, means confusing a block and a ban is more understandable, but 1) the only talk of topic bans I see in that discussion is opposing, and 2) even if the close was improper, I hardly think we can sanction an editor for violating a restriction that was never formally imposed, could we? EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my mistake -- I said topic, but meant page (edited to fix). Regardless, I agree with your point.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas B is forum-shopping because: first, after an edit war, there was an WP:NPOVN discussion started by User:LokiTheLiar. After this discussion and Talk:Tim Hunt reached a consensus Thomas B didn't agree with, Thomas B started a new thread on WP:BLPN. In the meanwhile Thomas B was reported to WP:ANI, which prompted an RfC about the contentious section's content and later also the page ban (or however this should be called, I'm lost). The RfC later concluded. However Thomas B, instead of accepting the now-RfC-backed consensus, created a second WP:BLPN thread. As far as my knowledge goes, this should constitute forum shopping. NicolausPrime (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate you making things clearer for me. I can see where you're coming from re: Forum Shopping. I still feel like, unless it's been done many times, the better first step is to tell the editor, "Hey, this is Forum Shopping, don't do it." The solution that allows productive editing with the minimum of administrative intervention is often the best one, after all. If he continues to forum shop, then there's a solid case (with a warning!) to point to. That said, in the context of the other issues in that BLPN thread, it does make a compelling reason for a topic ban. Thanks again for elaborating! EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas B was warned about own behavior multiple times, including after the page ban, and the previous ANI thread should have sent a strong signal that raising the same issue over and over again in multiple threads across multiple pages is sanctionable. The page ban vote was without consensus at first, until it changed because the disruption continued. It was all gradual, there definitely were many occassions for Thomas B to change course. I can try to be more eager to post warnings to user talk pages next time something like this happens, but this comes with its own set of problems. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Thomas B

    I thought that S Marshall's close of the RfC was sensible. I interpreted it as requiring ("In practice the only way that I can see to do this...") a proportionate expansion of the rest of the article. Since I had by then already been blocked, I could not myself contribute to this work, but watched on the sidelines.

    After about a week, it seemed clear that the editors working on the article were ignoring Marshall's advice and had settled on a version in which the event would occupy over 20% of the article. I then checked whether a page block implies a topic ban, found it did not, and therefore raised the issue on BLPN. Since then, I have posted only in response to other editors, in many cases because they asked questions or wanted sources.

    While I'm happy to grant that this could have happened in any case, the immediate effect of my intervention appears to be to have brought the controversy section down to under 15% of the total word count, at least for the time being, with some editors adding material outside the section and others trimming it a little. It has certainly not led to any disruption of the article or its talk page (i.e., it has not attracted disruptive editors nor stoked up controversy there). While I still think the content decisions are unwise and contrary to BLP policy, work there seems to be proceeding in a calm and orderly manner.

    Editors who simply want to improve the article are entirely free to ignore me. I do not contact them on their talk pages and I have not appealed my block. The only nuisance I'm causing seems to be mediated by actions like this proposal for a topic-ban and (remarkably) a site-ban. Obviously, I would appeal any such action, leading to more time wasted by administrators, perhaps even arbitration. As in the case of the original block, this all seems very over-the-top to me.

    Finally, I want to say that part of the problem is that I've been away from protracted controversies here for a long time, and there appears to have been a change in the way content disputes are resolved now. In particular, I was suprised to be blocked not by policy but by consensus.[283] Most of the people who contributed to that consensus were also involved in the content dispute. It does really seem like a group of editors showed up on an article to which I have made substantial contributions[284] over many years[285], took it over and forced me out, because there was one thing they wanted to make sure the article said. I don't remember it working that way in the past.

    Anyway, thanks for hearing my side. I hope it is clear that my aim here is, not to be annoying, but to ensure the intergrity of Wikipedia's BLP article on Tim Hunt and, of course, in line with our policy, to prevent its subject any unnecessary pain. Best,--Thomas B (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: topic ban

    I propose for Thomas B to be topic-banned from the subjects of Tim Hunt and Online shaming, broadly construed, replacing the previously mentioned page bans. The purpose of this ban is to prevent any further skirting around the page ban.

    • Support as proposer. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my above comment. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as my interpretation of the original block was that there was consensus for a topicpage ban before, and there's no indication that anything's changed. Extending that to a topic ban across a narrow set of topics isn't an unreasonable next step ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: the interaction here is illustrative of the fact that Thomas B simply does not exhibit the capacity to comprehend that anyone could hold views different from his own on this matter; this is incompatible with constructive discussion and consensus-forming. Moreover, it is clear that Thomas B lacks the self-control necessary to stop bludgeoning discussions on this issue. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think Thomas B's concerns regarding the Tim Hunt page are legitimate. That doesn't mean they are the consensus view but I can see how they can make their case in good faith. I would suggest they back away and let others reply and if others don't then they need to accept that they don't have consensus. I think this sanction is counter productive as it tells someone who is concerned about a BLP issue that they should just shut up and not have brought things up. I get that sometimes editors feel like someone is objecting too much. However, editors are also free to not reply. No one is going to think a 3:1 (or what ever it actually is) consensus against Thomas B's proposed changes will magically be closed as "consensus for" if Thomas B is allowed to have the last word. So long as the discussion doesn't leave BLPN (a legitimate place for the concern) and the discussion is civil I don't see why this needs admin action. Springee (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We had extensive discussions on WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN, Talk:Tim Hunt, WP:ANI, the RfC, and now yet another one on WP:BLPN. The previous BLPN thread was started by Thomas B after NPOVN reached a consesus against Thomas B's position. The current BLPN thread was created by Thomas B after the RfC concluded also against this user's position. Which is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. In every case the discussion concerned the same thing: a single subsubsection in Tim Hunt's biography, and each time consensus emerged against Thomas B. Which is WP:STICK. In every discussion Thomas B's made an excessively large amount of posts as compared to others, often reiterating the same arguments. Which is WP:BLUDGEONING.
      This has been going on for over a month and has been draining a considerable amount of attention from me and other editors. Isn't this disruptive and draining our community resources? Are you sure that this doesn't need admin action, and this typical topic-ban sanction would be as far as counter productive? NicolausPrime (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of Bludgeoning [286] Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked. Its almost a single-minded obsession. As regards WP:FORUMSHOPPING, this is repeatedly raising the same topic at multiple forums. [287] Reviewing Thomas B's contribution history demonstrates that he raised the issue at WP:BLPN once before the ANI thread started that led to his block and that was the sole time he had raised it in any forum outside of trying to discuss the topic on the article talk page. He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false. Rather we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly to have editors blocked but offering no real evidence and what little evidence is offered, when you look closer doesn't support the allegation of misconduct. WCMemail 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked."
    This is false, as directly contradicted by the following edits, unrelated to Thomas B, that I made between March 23 and today: [288] [289] [290] [291] [292].
    "He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false."
    The very discussion that you link, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim_Hunt, immediately reaches the conclusion that the filing constituted forum-shopping. We can disagree, maybe, whether the second BLPN thread created one month later constituted forum-shopping or was just beating a dead horse, but it evidently was at least one of that as it had been shortly preceded by extensive discussions that I noted above. And no, the issue is not distinct, it's a yet another, ad nauseam reiteration the same arguments about the article being unfair to Tim Hunt, to address which the RfC was created and have thus resolved.
    "we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly"
    This is the third or fourth time I see you making this accusation. I can't say for others, but I'm definitely not a member of any tag team. Except for commenting once in an earlier RfC started by LokiTheLiar, I don't think I've ever interacted with any of the editors involved in the Tim Hunt discussion and its offshoots before the NPOVN thread, where my involvement began. I started the original page-ban vote because I wanted the disruption to end, and I've started this thread because I felt responsible for failing to prevent further disruption due to my choice of a page ban instead of a topic ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support This is clearly what the original consensus intended and Thomas B's behavior since then is a clear example of WP:GAMING. Loki (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Seems the only way to prevent this (part of the) disruption continuing. Bon courage (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Thomas B has raised legitimate concerns about WP:BLP policy, in the close of the RFC it was noted his concerns were legitimate and could not be ignored. Per Springee he is entitled to raise those concerns at WP:BLPN. I see someone has suggested he is bludgeoning the discussion and I acknowledge he has made a number of contributions. However, most are replies in a discussion with Newimpartial e.g. [293]. There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it. It is Kafkaesque to suggest an editor is sanctioned as the result of an WP:ANI thread raised against another editor who has an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor's excessive posts. @EducatedRedneck: I presume your support vote reflects your satisfaction that WP:FORUMSHOPPING is an issue, may I draw your attention that the NicolausPrime considers that I have raised an issue in a forum once as forumshopping. WCMemail 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often - in the ANI section above, the only evidence presented in support of this assertion [294] [295] includes (succinct) responses to direct questions as though they could be violations, although such are explicitly excluded by the terms of my restrictions (as was noted by SilverSeren above).
      No other editor in "my" section, aside from the OP, has suggested any possible violation of my anti-bludgeon restriction, and many editors have participated above. I would therefore appreciate if you would strike your assertion here that I am breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it - there is no suggestion that I have broken my anti-bludgeon restriction nor is there a suggestion that I be sanctioned, so I'd rather not see that inaccurate statement left in this other section (where I randomly happened to see it).
      You also imply (when you refer to an WP:ANI thread raised by an editor already under an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor (1) that I raised a thread at ANI (since no other editor here is under a restriction for number of posts per topic) and (2) that Thomas B. is facing sanctions here for responding to my comments. So far as I can tell, neither of these assertions is accurate, since I didn't bring anything to ANI and sanctions proposed here are about forum shopping and have nothing to do with any interaction between Thomas B. and myself. Perhaps you were confusing me with NicolausPrime, an editor I had never been aware of until the last day or so on this page.
      Anyway, I'd appreciate you striking the second reference to my editing as well; I'd rather not see spurious statements be made about my conduct even incidentally (and possibly based on mistaken identity). Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mistake your identity, I mistakenly pasted the wrong name but that's fixed now. I do believe you have broken your anti-bludgeon restriction but you've obviously missed that I opposed any sanction. I am not the only editor to think that way, so I will respectfully decline that request. I had also noticed it myself but chose not to report it - I usually try to avoid the drama boards until after I try and discuss with editors first. I will revise my wording to make my meaning clearer; Nicholas started this thread as a result of the thread raised about you and that is what I meant. I was also responding to the bludgeoning accusation against Thomas, which is largely responding to posts you made requesting a reply from him. Which is not to accuse anyone of misconduct and I have not sought any action against anyone including you. I trust that clarifies the matter? WCMemail 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your !vote above doesn't refer in any way to my anti-bludgeon restriction, nor do those of any other editors apart from the OP and Silver seren, who corrected the OP's misinterpretation of the restriction (Silver seren quoted the actual text of the restriction, above).
    If you still do believe [I] have broken [my] anti-bludgeon restriction, I'd appreciate you documenting that in the relevant section above, preferably with the evidence you consider relevant, so the question can be addressed by other editors - at the moment, that view seems to have been rejected by all editors contributing to the discussion besides the OP. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already declined to report your violation of your anti-bludgeon restriction, I do so again. If I had felt it needed action I would have already discussed it with you. Now having had to give the same reply effectively twice, may I draw attention to this. Please take the hint. WCMemail 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not going to report it, then stop bringing it up. This is staring to look like WP:HOUNDing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WCM, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I don't think you're suggesting that someone making a spurious accusation against you therefore determines the legitimacy (one way or the other) of an accusation against Thomas B. Are you saying NicolausPrime fabricated the claims of the five involved fora (talk page consensus, NPOVN, BLPN, RfC, 2nd BLPN)? EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose; Springee put it perfectly. I appreciate the ban is supposed to reflect bludgeoning and failing to drop the stick, but it also looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the "wrong" opinion, an attempt by one side to undermine the other. The harm done by such a ban - the chilling effect on future debate - greatly exceeds the mild inconvenience of an editor writing a bit too much about their viewpoint, in too many fora. Elemimele (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Per Springee, Thomas B should back away, but I would suggest the same for the editors interacting with Thomas B. Nemov (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Run-of-the-mill response to an example of the kind of forum-shopping and stick-grabbing that the project has seen time and time again as the years have rolled by. Any "chilling effect" on editors expressing opinions vaguely aligned with Thomas B's is purely speculative. If we stopped doing topic bans because of such speculation, we'd have to find a whole new way of dealing with a very real problem. XOR'easter (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Though i agree with Springee and others about the concerns, i believe that Thomas B has shown/is showing a startling lack of ability to read the room and work within a community. If the several editors above who also agree with his point (though not his methods) are representative of a portion of the community then that point will be discussed and taken into consideration without Thomas B's disruptive behaviour. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Whilst I understand what the opposers are saying, this isn't a proposed ban for having the "wrong" opinion, it's a ban for being utterly and completely unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK even after a previous block. It would have been simple to walk away and edit one of the other 7 million Wikipedia articles, but ... no. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support formal topic ban. This user apparently cannot comprehend the idea that he should stop digging after the initial page block, and is carrying on the arguments in other locations. A topic ban is the only way we can move forward without Thomas dragging this out across the wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is the problem my inability to drop the stick or a number of editors inability to ignore a quite tame posting to BLPN? Other than this very strange ANI, what disruption has my post caused? What effect has my post had on the editing of the Tim Hunt article? Thomas B (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      a quite tame posting You have made approximately 20 comments in the discussion at BLPN; all other editors combined have made about 40. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You understand that I have mainly answered their questions, right? I should have "dropped the stick" and ignored their direct questions? Thomas B (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're still digging... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You understand that your response is evasive, that your original comment is dishonest, and that you are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to exhibit the self-control necessary to participate in an acceptable way, right? --JBL (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the accusation of dishonesty is unfair and uncivil, so I'm not responding to this comment. Thomas B (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is a transparent refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK combined with WP:IDHT. I am sure that the concerns are genuine, but they have already been discussed and addressed. At this point Thomas needs to leave this to other editors and WP:AGF (saying things like they want to paint Hunt as a sexist when someone disagrees about anything is not what I would consider good-faith). In terms of dropping the stick, we can all see the responses at BLPN and they have not been mainly answer[ing] their questions. See for example: [296] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [297] (continuing to double down) and [298] (no one asked any question here either) and [299] (example of WP:IDHT, editors have repeatedly explained that no one is suggesting the article call him sexist, but Thomas is still arguing as if they are) and [300] (accusing other editors of bad faith unprompted). This whole situation is getting ridiculous. The RFC is closed. The article is being edited productively. Let's all just move on. (also this is my first comment at ANI so please let me know if I messed up formatting somewhere or need to change anything) CambrianCrab (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – no harm is being caused to the encyclopedia by raising legitimate and genuine BLP concerns. If you don't want to interact with him, then don't. I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "I don't think he should be blocked because I agree with him, and his behavioral issues are actually the fault of other people" ok then. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Less sarcastically: Wikipedia operates on a consensus-based discussion model. Consensus models only work if (1) people are generally willing to accept when consensus is against them, and (2) people who refuse to acknowledge this can be prevented from disrupting discussions. The problem with Thomas B is not his views, it's that he's failing (1) and consequently forcing others to rely on (2).
      Here is a very simple question you could ask yourself: suppose that there were a 60-comment discussion involving 10 or 12 participants; how many comments would you expect each person to be making under normal circumstances, if no one is bludgeoning or arguing just for the sake of arguing or exhibiting WP:IDHT? Personally, I think any time you see someone making 12 or 15 comments in those circumstances, it's a very bad sign. Thomas B has made 20. --JBL (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would expect the person who started the discussion to make significantly more comments than anyone else in the discussion. It would not surprise me if they replied at least once to each of the others, sometimes merely to grant a point, clarify a statement, or answer a question. So, in a discussion with 10-12 participants, that 12-15 number seems conservative to me. Your reasoning, however, certainly explains the hostility against me if it has become the general view at WP. Like I say in my statement, things do seem to have changed since I was last involved in a big controversy. I mean, people have taken even my participation in this ANI proposing to ban me as a sign that I can't drop the stick (or shovel, per Hand). It's just peculiar, frankly. Thomas B (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if it has become the general view at WP
      This has been the general view for a long, long time, hence WP:BLUDGEON, which has existed since 2008. Responding to every single comment is the very heart of BLUDGEON. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose By the time the post was made to BLPN Hemiauchenia had already been working on the issue of implementing the RfC result. Firefangledfeathers trimmed the controversy section, tho i'm not sure if this was in response to the posting. S Marshall was providing some valuable comments. Morbidthoughts and Hemiauchenia started a good discussion which probably could have been very useful. Could have been better if more editors would have kept their eyes on the ball, but not the worst WP noticeboard discussion ever. fiveby(zero) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's become clear that Thomas B really can't drop this issue. Even if the BLPN thread has resulted in some constructive changes, his responses in the BLPN discussion make it obvious that he just cannot accept that the majority of people don't agree with him on what the section should look like, and that he's just going to keep causing disruption regarding this issue unless he is topic banned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's entirely correct that in my opinion the majority is wrong and that I think the article is currently misleading. I've added an update to this effect at the BLPN post.[301] But expressing this opinion is not in itself a disruption. I've been puzzled at the amount of annoyance (and administration) I've caused simply by posting things that could easily just be ignored, especially since I'm working within the contraints of a block that I have not appealed. Thomas B (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thomas B, you may wish to reread WP:IDHT. I feel encompasses why this amount of annoyance is being had from your conduct. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Consensus at this point on the article is clear (and has been for a long time); Thomas B's continued refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK, his WP:IDHT response to months of discussion and attempts to WP:FORUMSHOP the dispute are long past the point of being disruptive. Simply believing that the majority is wrong doesn't allow someone to endlessly raise the same issue in every possible venue available to them forever - we don't write articles or reach consensus via filibuster. The fact that his responses, above, show that he still doesn't get it even after an article-level block and after numerous people here have explained to him shows that nothing but a topic ban is going to work here. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia

    This is unnecessary, against policy and clearly will not achieve consensus. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I propose for Thomas B to be banned from the English Wikipedia for two months, independently and additionally to the above topic ban. The purpose of this ban is to act as a deterrent from any further gaming of the sanctions.

    • Support as proposer. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as unnecessary and punitive. With a topic ban in place, escalating blocks may be imposed as necessary. Let's extend more WP:ROPE so they can contribute helpfully to other areas. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose premature. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I haven't seen any indication of disruption outside of this topic area. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Clearly unnecessary. It also would be easy for editors to presume the motive in suggesting this block was to be punitive. As I said above, if Thomas B's arguments aren't shifting consensus then why worry? If they are shifting consensus then this sort of block looks more like gaming than protective. Springee (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The issue seems to be contained to the topics proposed to be banned for the accused, and this proposal goes beyond reasonable prevention. If the topic ban above becomes enforced, a block can be imposed if it gets contravened. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Not necessary or warranted. Bon courage (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Seems punitive. Grandpallama (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Comment

    I note there are now 3 threads related to issues surrounding the Tim Hunt article, making 4 in less than a month. I like @Elemimele: and @Fiveby: are concerned about the toxic nature of the discussion surrounding that article. I am no longer editing there like those two editors and don't intend to return. I suggest @Thomas B: stops as well, not because he is wrong but for his own well being and mental health. Rather than being guided by sources, looking at what the prevailing views are in the literature, the discussions have descended into editors looking for sources to validate their own opinions. ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents in the discussion rather than addressing urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Notably, accusations of disruptive behaviour are unsupported by evidence, scratch the surface of what little is offered as evidence and it crumples. I haven't called for any sanctions, I opposed a proposal yesterday and still urge that as S Marshall suggested that an intervention by an uninvolved SySop may be required to stave off an arbcom case. WCMemail 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents You have moaned about this in two or three places now, but oddly you have not noted that you started one of the threads, nor have you apologized to me for doing so; odd, that. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you intend to do anything about these accusations that ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents, or are you going to keep posting this in some vague WP:FORUM manner? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an "us vs them" situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.
    I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Improper close

    Reported editor blocked indefinitely by Dennis Brown per WP:NOTHERE. --JBL (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    I reverted this close. Can someone review the account which made the close. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I also notice that Candied Tater's userpage redirects to an admin's user page (and here is the diff where they created that redirect). Seems like the user picked out the longest thread, or saw it at WP:CR (permanent link). Whatever the user was trying to do, it seems disruptive. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I blocked him under WP:NOTHERE. The user page (now deleted) sealed the fate, redirecting to an admin's page (User:Red-tailed hawk) after that admin changed it so they don't redirect their user page to a Guideline. Troll like behavior, obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I went ahead and deleted their 2 !votes on this page. If someone objects feel free to restore. But seems like WP:DENY is the best approach here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:99.209.199.62 Keep vandelzing Wikipedia

    Hi I just saw a ip keep vandelzing the page Final Fantasy XVI can you please block the ip since he continued after the final warning Fixer332 (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fixer332 The IP has now been blocked for a week. Next time, a better place to report this would be AIV. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:8diq and disruptive editing

    8diq (talk · contribs · count) has

    • repeatedly inserted a large amount of inline images (which is basically the only type of edits they did) despite MOS:IRELEV and other editors' warnings on their talk page
      • first warned on December 2023, around ~25 edits afterwards
    • posted copyrighted materials on articles and cross-wiki-uploaded copyrighted images to Commons tagged as "own work"
    • not even one edit that is not reverted

    Northern Moonlight 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Barr Theo and bot-like mass creation of articles

    User:Barr Theo's only contributions have been to create many new articles in batches, often several in less than one minute, and always at timestamps ending in :59 or :00. This pattern of mass-creation, as well as the total unresponsiveness on their talk page regarding their behavior, makes me believe they might be running an unauthorized bot creating these articles for them. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked until he explains this bot-like activity. Manuel María Smith, Manuel Rodríguez Arzuaga, Manuel de la Sota, Manuel del Castillo and Manuel Gallego were all created within the exact same minute. There's no way those were done manually (or is it Manuelly?) The WordsmithTalk to me 02:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (or is it Manuelly?) Boooooo. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bot-like? Or butt-like? EEng 06:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi, I am Barr Theo. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my "insane streak of creations for March", which is also the reason why I did not answer Chaotic Enby. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).
      Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use "unauthorized bots", I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used "unauthorized bots"; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing.
      Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.
      Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by "bot-like activity", I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).
      Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this). 2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Block evasion, isn't going to help, in fact that makes the situation worse. my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today what schedule? Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Wordsmith:, self admitted block evasion above. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it, thanks. I've responded at User talk:Barr Theo and blocked the /64. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really didn't wanna break my streak nor use IP addresses due to my previous problems with multi-accounts doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. Narky Blert (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd guess they are referring to their previous unblock conditions: [302]. – 2804:F1...75:DAC1 (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As much as Barr Theo's explanation here and on their talk might be unusual, I don't see reason not to believe it. Unless there are any substantive issues with the pages that would warrant administrative intervention (and nobody has raised any), I don't think we should be keeping them blocked, and I don't think we should be weighing their evasion against them, since all they've been doing is appealing, albeit in the wrong place. The Wordsmith, are you okay with an unblock? --Blablubbs (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule. And then failing to respond to inquiries on their Talk page when people asked what they were doing. If nothing else, they need to acknowledge that this is a collaborative editing environment and just ignoring concerns is a bad idea.
      More concerning, this isn't the first time they've resorted to sockpuppetry. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule.
      I don't think people's "internal schedules" are something we should be concerned with (or concerned by), provided that their scheduling doesn't lead to problematic behaviour. The problematic behaviour raised here so far is them not responding to a single query. I agree that's something they need to change in the future, but it's not a what I'd consider a major offence, and neither is their logging out to respond here. If they had done (or were to do) anything other than trying to engage with community concerns while logged out, it'd be a very different story, but they haven't. This is what I'd essentially consider a "good faith" SOCK violation, as opposed to "proper" socking.
      All that said, I'm a bit concerned by the "line-pulling" referred to in response to The Wordsmith's query, and concur that this should probably be cleared up before proceeding. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't really care about the block evasion, since it clearly wasn't intended to actually be evasive. I see we've had an explanation about what this project is for, and I find it unusual but plausible. I'm satisfied that there's no unauthorized botting happening. I've asked one more question, about whether the text for these articles is original or translated/copied from somewhere (which might require attribution or checking for copyvio). If that's answered, and Barr Theo agrees to be reasonably responsive to the questions/concerns of other editors in the future, I'm fine with any admin unblocking if I don't get to it first. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The block evasion was, however, against an explicit condition in the June unblock by Seraphimblade, noted by the other IP above: I'm unblocking your account subject to a one-account restriction. Specifically, you may not operate any account except for this one, and may not intentionally edit while logged out. If you accidentally edit while you are logged out, you may correct that by immediately claiming credit for the edit using this account. (diff). First they requested unblock while logged out, then they requested unblock on your, The Wordsmith's, talk page while logged out, then they posted here while logged out. I am also considerably less than impressed by their putting an "insane streak" above even responding to a query (and by the hyperbole about "criminality" when they are blocked for their apparent disregard of site rules). Yngvadottir (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by ජපස

    I believe that I should be able to discuss the reliability of sources without being called an ideologically-driven antiwokist. Please do something about it. Zerotalk 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems to be the upshot of your argument. I look at impact of your rhetoric and cannot judge the intent. I have no way to judge what your mindset is. Shall I add something to that effect? jps (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall! [303]. jps (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's scarcely any better. Frankly, any accusation related to "wokeness" (supposedly for or against) is inappropriate and poisons a topic. On any culture war-adjacent topic where it might be invoked, it could be hurled against any participant (again, supposedly for or against). As WP:NPA#WHATIS says, Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Crossroads -talk- 04:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So jps decided to double down on his attack. Jps argues against the reliability of an academic journal mostly based on his own opinion of what he thinks is the ideology of the journal. This includes sweeping assertions about 60 academics: "the members of this editorial board really are proponents of fringe theories", BLP be damned. My argument is that the reliability of a journal doesn't depend on whether jps or myself like what it publishes. I should be able to take that position without being accused of being a supporter of the ideology that jps abhors. I would take the same position if the ideology of the journal was the opposite. The fact is that jps doesn't have a clue what my ideological position is and I shouldn't have to take his ignorant insults. Zerotalk 04:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @jps: There are times to go hard and pour buckets on opponents, but this is not one of them. The entire Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Journal of Controversial Ideas discussion is a waste of space because there is no actionable proposal. Is someone saying that journal can never be used as a source? Surely people know that explicit examples must be discussed before assessing whether something is reliable. Zero0000 is not playing a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game—it's actually you who are missing what Zero0000 has written. I am sympathetic to the view that some philosophers struggle to find interesting topics to discuss and they offer opinions on topics outside their expertise. We could chat about that but again it would be a waste of space. Please stop arguing there and wait until something actionable arises (should a particular claim in a particular article be sourced to the Journal of Controversial Ideas?). And stop insulting valid comments. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked ජපස 1 week (as an Arbitration Enforcement action) for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. There's a long history of warnings, sanctions and blocks for incivility in pseudoscience-related matters, dating back to at least 2006 with an Arbcom "Caution" at WP:ARBPSCI#ScienceApologist is uncivil up through a 2023 Arbitration Enforcement report where he was reminded to report pro-fringe disruption to administrators rather than being uncivil to them. Most recently, he was asked just a week ago to tone down the language and informed about WP:BRIE. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I consider myself a wikifriend of jps, and I tend to agree with his views on content matters, The Wordsmith accurately points to my warning about BRIE as part of that recent discussion at jps' talk page, and I endorse what The Wordsmith did. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. I encountered JPS here at ANI and through the Ammonihah page linked below. I'll add that JPS's behavior extends beyond the above thread. In this past month, he has repeatedly chosen to express himself uncivilly on multiple pages (diffs provided below). As The Wordsmith points out, editors encouraged JPS to be more civil at his talk page (permanent link) preceding the behavior at WP:FTN. JPS's acknowledgment that the thread had presented a fair critique apparently wasn't an indicator he would change his behavior.
    On user talk pages:
    In tags for Second Nephi
    At Talk:Massacre of the Innocents:
    In edit summaries for Massacre of the Innocents:
    At Talk:Ammonihah
    In edit summaries, body text, and tags for Ammonihah:
    Here at ANI:
    I understand there's been a lot of ferment about articles in Mormon studies topic areas. I can accept if how I or others have contributed isn't what the community wants; I can accept articles like Ammonihah being revised, even drastically. But I'm unconvinced that JPS's behavior is necessary to accomplish that (to use the Ammonihah page as an example, other editors have been able to talk about revising the article without similar behavior; Ghosts of Europa, Steve Quinn). As Zero0000 said, editors shouldn't have to take JPS's insults. And this behavior is not limited to Mormon studies (as FTN and Massacre of the Innocents demonstrate). Maybe a one-week block will be enough to remind JPS of the ArbCom caution. But when this has apparently been going on for so long, and when JPS seems to react to concerns about his behavior with relative indifference (even when he invites discussion on his talk page about his behavior, he says, You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things), I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary to prevent more uncivil behavior in the future. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For record, I actually agree with much of jps's effort in keeping bible literalism out of the encyclopedia. He could do it with a lot less incivility though, as some but not all of these examples illustrate. Also, these examples don't sufficiently distinguish between robust discussion of sources (which is allowed and necessary within BLP limits) and insults and insinuations against editors which are not allowed. Zerotalk 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, discussion of sources is allowed within BLP limits. The diffs pertaining to source discussion that I chose to include affect discussion and other editors in a way that I think is well characterized by this quote from the talk thread page that The Wordsmith linked above (diff): I'm [Tryptofish] not worried that you [JPS] hurt the sources' feelings. But when you say these things about sources in a way that causes bad feelings among other editors, it's not necessarily those other editors' fault that they feel bad. If you think it's a source of pride to hurt other editors' feelings, well, that's both bullshit and baloney. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is a good example of "it's not what you say, it's how you say it". I don't like to see jps blocked as I feel he's a tremendous resource when it comes to astronomy, astrophysics, and matters related to skepticism and paranormal nonsense. But when it comes to some topics, particularly religious topics, jps can get into a kind of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation, and his demeanor rapidly changes and he can get nasty. I can completely understand his approach because I have myself been there (as my block log can attest), particularly when it comes to political topics. I think what helped me loosen up and calm down a little bit was to remember two things: try to remember the human on the other side, and to acknowledge the coincidentia oppositorum—that we can't have the black without the white, the light without the dark, and the religious without the non-religious. My goal is to try and remain civil within that tension of the opposites. I hope jps can do the same in the future as he's a valuable contributor. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If JPS's pattern of incivility crops up in certain topic areas, would focusing JPS's editorial efforts on other topic areas be a reasonable preventative measure to take going forward, in light of the long duration of this recurring behavior? Focusing on astrophysics and astronomy, for example, and avoiding religious studies. (Or, so as to also encompass the topic area of the thread at FTN—apparently about a philosophy periodical—avoiding the humanities?) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was merely providing an example, but my guess is that the intersection between fringe theories, scientific skepticism, and other topics is quite large, so it can’t really be reduced to a single topic area. The best thing jps can do is to limit their replies (avoid bludgeoning) and allow their opponents to have the last word. This is something I’ve tried to bring to the table with my own contributions, and while I haven’t always been successful, it has personally helped me become more civil in my approach. In the relevant example, jps already had his say and didn’t need to keep replying to Zero. I think we have to try to avoid protracted discussions that have a tendency to become personal. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's good advice for all of us and could be a good thing for JPS to do. I do wonder, with this behavior having such a long history (nearly 18 years), wide breadth (multiple topic areas), and vitriolic depth (visible in multiple examples), whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures designed to help JPS to do so and to avoid incivility and personal attacks. As much as his goal is to help the project, JPS has received warnings, cautions, advice, and blocks about this for more than a decade and a half, and he has evidently nevertheless kept resuming this pattern of behavior. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hydrangeans you write "I do wonder ... whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures" and you write above "I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary". The read of the room here, for me, is that the current block is warranted but that further sanctions are not. Are you going to propose "further formal measures" or are you content to be left wondering? I am slightly concerned about what might amount to a desire to take an opponent off the board, so to speak. Bon courage (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was wondering, because the pattern of behavior seemed long-term and serious but there hadn't been clear expression about further sanctions. Now that you put into words the read of the room I'm seeing what you're saying. I admit I'm a little surprised. I guess having been on the receiving end of JPS's behavior and how miserable the experience was I was concerned more than the average in this thread about the same happening again to more editors in the future. I've tried to keep content disagreements elsewhere separate from the act of reporting behavior in this thread; that said, feelings can run hot at ANI, so as much as what you're concerned about isn't my goal I won't begrudge you your concern when it's such a natural one.
      In any event, even if the room did have a read supportive of further action—which you're right, it doesn't right now—it dawns on me that any action would probably be premature anyway, when the present action is still in its duration and the results are still forthcoming. All that to say, I'm content right now to be left wondering, and with your input I'm wondering less anyhow. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My own personal take, is that jps should voluntarily remove himself from the noticeboards for an indefinite period, as that is where most of the issues seem to be arising, with the fringe theories noticeboard highlighted in this thread. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note ජපස has asked that the his statement be copied over here, so I've done that below The WordsmithTalk to me 13:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC):[reply]

    Please copy my statement to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I do apologize for personal attack offense. I tried to redact and am always amenable to discussion. jps (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) jps (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emrahthehistorist17

    This emerges from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes. While the discussion was active on AN, the mass edits to infoboxes stopped albeit with no response of any sort from Emrah. Mere days after it was archived, the mass edits described there promptly started up again. The exact same issues I noted previously which deal with MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and use of the |result= in {{infobox military conflict}} immediately recurred.

    There have been multiple attempts to discuss this. I noted five previous attempts in my AN report:

    This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done., I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice.

    There was absolutely no response to the notification of AN discussion. The only response I am aware of to anything since then was on Emrah's talk page yesterday where he simply responded with a curt Okay, I changed Hannibal and Ligustinus, but don't delete my other additions when factual errors were found. These edits to infoboxes are highly disruptive, especially when Emrah does not seem to understand that infoboxes are supplementary summaries of articles that reflect the contents therein and then misunderstands what is being summarised (as at Roman–Seleucid war). This has been made clear multiple times; to pause these edits while the behaviour was under discussion at AN, be entirely silent contra WP:COMMUNICATE, and then restart them immediately after that discussion at AN was archived, feels akin to a sort of bad-faith gaming and at minimum a WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Ifly6 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Its the same behavior of refusing to read what WP:MOS says and trying to push his views at whatever cost. When some points out that he has introduced an error its either WP:ICANTHEARYOU or making minor modifications that do not solve the underlying problem and then saying: "I changed it, it fine now.".--Catlemur (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nonsensical edit summaries

    Dealt with. Amortias (T)(C) 08:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Polavarapu Mokshith Sai (talk · contribs · email): over 200+ nonsensical edit summaries like "cv bnbv hftzgrzdcrfdcgert drfycjg h" and "yjtttttttt". They were warned 2 days ago and proceeded with 30+ more edit summaries with keyboard smashes. Bonus: promotional edits. Northern Moonlight 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked Polavarapu Mokshith Sai as not here to build an encyclopedia for overtly non-neutral promotional editing, and hundreds of instances of gibberish in edit summaries. A toxic combination. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Legal threats at Talk:Richard Huckle

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

    2600:1700:3EC7:4150:CDF5:ECBA:20AF:BA6F making legal threats against the site. Gene Stanley1 (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. And I can't say I'm particularly surprised, when you see that someone had vandalised the article repeatedly to change the name of the article subject (a convicted serial child abuser) to the name of another individual - quite possibly the IPs. It is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone in that situation to engage in deep research into Wikipedia policy on what is or isn't permitted on article talk pages before responding. See Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Following this, is there any real benefit to letting IP users edit this article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not particularly, though one could say the same about the many other biographical articles that see similar vandalism. The problem needs fixing properly: i.e. pending changes for all BLPs at minimum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefit to letting IP users edit this article was demonstrated here. An IP user removed the serious WP:BLP violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that there's much more that we can reasonably do about this specific threat, given what AndyTheGrump says and that this is an unregistered user. I get the impression that the editor simply wanted to correct an egregious fault on Wikipedia. I have left them a note explaining WP:NLT in case they come back. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? We have absolutely no reason not to assume that the contributor had a legitimate complaint about the content. Do you really expect individuals in such a situation to read through the entire corpus of Wikipedia guidelines and policies before responding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that does seem a little thoughtless and heavy-handed. Surely some information about legal threats would have been better than a block in the circumstances. The originator of the threat, who seemed to be acting in good faith and for the good of Wikipedia, did not have a chance to retract it.Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The legal threat has been retracted. I hope that this editor is unblocked now. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just unblocked them a few minutes ago. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The block was a good block -- it does not matter whether the issuer of a legal threat is in the right or not. The threat itself is against policy; it creates a chilling effect on editors; and prevents the assumption of good faith. That's not an opinion -- that's explicitly what our policy states. And the policy describes exactly how to handle this situation -- block them for the duration of the legal threat, and unblock them without prejudice or ill-will once they rescind it. We should also, if it hasn't been done, sanction the editor who made the offending statement in the first place. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks at User talk:Anant-morgan

    User:Anant-morgan continues making personal attacks following a block [304]. Please remove talk page access. JimRenge (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I heavily agree. They literally flipped Doug off after he blocked them. I honestly feel pretty bad for him. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Ingenuity resolved our problems. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a strong suspicion that Are you restarted or something? isn't what A-m meant. Narky Blert (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MisteOsoTruth and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.

    MisteOsoTruth is a single purpose account dedicated to the recent controversy surrounding Sweet Baby Inc, an area covered under contentions topics restrictions. They have received notices about this. They have been filling the talk page there with personal attacks on other editors and BLP violations (by accusing named individuals of committing harassment). Personal attacks: [305][306][307] and BLP violations: [308][309][310][311][312]. Here's a personal attack (against someone else) repeated on my user talk in response to a warning I placed about personal attacks: [313]. And here is the response to my efforts to warn them about this on their user talk page, repeating the accusations: [314].

    This has gone on long enough, I would suggest a block as this user is clearly not going to stop and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They have been given more than sufficient rope. I concur WP:NOTHERE applies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support a NOTHERE block, the repeated BLP violations make it clear they're not going to adhere to our rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have contacted me though email to also discuss the same points they argue for in the talk page. I have emailed them back advising them to focus on getting RSs instead of tweets, youtube videos and screenshots while trying to explain why those are disallowed. I hoped that as someone who hadn't been very involved in the talk page (having only made one comment) I could advice them without any feelings of hostility. Seeing them continue their old ways without taking my advise saddens me but does reinforce my feeling that they simply refuse to learn the policies of wikipedia, instead of simply being ignorant of it.
    Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on this user being an SPA, creating a significant amount of heat and not much light around a contentious topic page that's been immensely disrupted over the past several weeks, and the demonstrated lack of competency and WP:NOTHERE concerns, I'm going to partial block MisteOsoTruth from the SBI article and talk page for 2 months. Because of the way the CTOPS appeals process works, and the fact that I'm editing on a laptop from out-of-town, I'm proactively giving my approval in advance for any uninvolved admin to modify or remove that block without needing to consult with me first. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Although I'm a bit late with this, I would also point out that this edit (and this one from above) targets User:Ryulong, who was blocked almost a decade ago as part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. It is simply implausible that a new editor could randomly decide to bear a grudge against someone who was indefinitely blocked nearly a decade ago. Their focus on him strongly suggests that this editor is either a sockpuppet or arrived here via one of the gamergate blogs or forums that still (to this day) regard Ryulong as something of a Bête noire; the nature of that focus suggests possible WP:MEAT / WP:CANVASS issues. --Aquillion (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be reasonably convident that there is some WP:CANVAS going on with that article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Molarinoye09

    Molarinoye09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Since September 2023, Molarinoye09 has been disrupting Take That related articles by introducing unsourced material, or creating articles and using sources from Instagram, which aren't enough to go about on. When the article gets redirected due to WP:NSONG, or if a link is removed due to said article being redirected like these articles here, and here, they revert back and sometimes respond with "Don't do something bad." or "leave this article alone!" and has even got to even posting those on the article talk pages of those redirects, as well as stating "This is an article, not a redirect." which also suggests WP:OWN issues. They have been previously warned multiple times, but they have continued to ignore them as if the policies of Wikipedia do not apply to them, though they did state that they "would not be blocked" when they were warned about missing copyright and/or source information for images they upload. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their behavior to date unsuitable on multiple grounds--uploading fair use images without appropriate justifications, poor quality articles, bad sourcing. This, created today, is obviously unsuited for mainspace. If this continues they're getting blocked, but I'd like to hear from them first. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...aaand within 35 minutes of You and Me (Take That single) being redirected to the band (09:26), they're back again with Draft:You and Me (Take That song) (09:59). Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely no response to the ANI notice either. I think they are refusing to communicate. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Double check me on this, but based on the timestamps I don't believe they've edited since this discussion opened. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I created the page for the band's new album back in September, and I've been chasing after them and trying to fix their, to be frank, pretty poor edits. They are constantly trying to make new pages for singles which might not need them, and even when they're in draft form, add links to them on the actual wiki. You can see this on some of the edits they did to the page for Wonderland. I've helped out a little with these pages to make them a little more justifiable to exist, but even then they are purely stubs which are just on the cusp of notability.
    Another thing I've had to deal with them (which I find particularly annoying) is they stole the description on my profile page, changed "The Beatles" to "One Direction", replaced my name with their own and did nothing else. It does make it funny therefore that their profile page claims they are interested in 90/00s electronic music, and have been writing for a wiki about aviation accidents since 2020, when they certainly haven't. But still, it's annoying.
    As to whether or not I think they should be banned, I think so, but only for a week at most. This person clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and just telling them doesn't seem to be fixing it, as you mentioned. I think banning them temporarily will show them that they need to listen to us. Tedster41 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on their edits, I would say it would be a longer temporary block than just a week. I don't think a week is going to get them to hear us out, as they'll likely jump back to doing the same edits as before once it expires. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Block request

    Dealt with. Amortias (T)(C) 08:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can somebody please block this IP? Special:Contributions/170.231.85.132 Petty vandalism adding fake death dates to BLPs. Thanks Jkaharper (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's someone in Brazil who does this frequently, using various IPs. Just revert/warn, revert/warn, report to WP:AIV. Schazjmd (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And they're blocked. Thanks, @Jauerback:! Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    S201050066 once more

    Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive357#S201050066 again

    Could we get a block on IP 64.229.35.200 (contributions) and S201050066 number 43.3, who posted some angry rant on my talk page? It looks like this user is being disruptive in COVID-19 articles again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tenryuu all the rest of the Timeline Of The COVID-19 pandemics articles on our list to S201050066 number 43.3 (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed by Spicy. Lynch44 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) And the IP's been blocked for 7 days by Nthep. ‍ Relativity 00:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I give thanks to all the admins involved. I don't suppose this is enough to merit semi-protection on COVID-19 timeline articles that S201050066 has edited? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    S201050066 has once again resurfaced as another IP, 142.0.158.174 (contributions). May I ask for a block on this address and once again semi-protection for the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in [month] [year] articles? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi everyone, I have been in touch with S201050066 via social media. He has apologised for his recent behaviour, stating that he and his colleague had been assaulted at work. He wrongfully believed that me and @Tenryuu: were behind the incident and decided to take it out on us and Wikipedia. I told him that we had nothing to do with the unpleasant workplace incident and that it did not justify his behaviour on Wikipedia. I told him to get help from his family or loved ones in the future. Much as S20105066 wants to edit, I think his pattern of behaviour won't endear him to the community. I have told him in the past that he needs to stop living in the past and move beyond Wikipedia. Hopefully there is a pathway for him to return to Wikipedia but I agree thay now is not the right time. Andykatib 21:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The course of action leading to vandalising an online website because of an unrelated real-life assault is profoundly baffling. Andykatib (who has been pretty nice over everything that's happened) and I do not own the COVID-19 timeline articles; any detrimental edits to those pages affects anyone who reads or has them on their watchlist. Even if an assault is what spurned the sudden influx of edits, that doesn't excuse non-sequitur outbursts like "if you try to revert us again we will sue wikipedia" and "stop reverting our edits or we will file a 20 billion dollar lawsuit on wikipedia". I will not consider those to be legitimate legal threats given the user's history, but I strongly suggest that S201050066 seeks appropriate legal recourse through proper channels to address the incident in real life, not annoy uninvolved people over the Internet who might not even be living in the same country. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for getting back in touch @Tenryuu:, I agree with your points. S201050066’s online behaviour including edit warring and making legal and personal threats are unacceptable behaviour akin to a toddler throwing a tantrum after not getting what they want. It may help for Wikipedia users to know that S201050066 has autism, which can affect his thought patterns, rationalisation and behaviour. I am speaking as someone who has Asperger's syndrome and has a brother with high-functioning autism. I am not trying to excuse S201050066 actions but I think this information may be helpful for understanding his behaviour. Autistic and Asperger’s people can manage their thinking and behaviour, just like other neurodiverse and people with disabilities. Since s201050066 is prone to intermittent outbursts which leads to his misbehaviour on Wikipedia, I agree that it’s not in the best interests of the community and himself not to let him edit as long as he continues to persist with edit warring and harassment. Andykatib (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sak7340

    User:Sak7340 (talk · contribs) has been edit-warring on Mohammed Zubair (journalist) and is on their 8th revert so far. There is a WP:EWN report but it hasn't been reviewed yet. They've now created a couple of retaliatory and incomplete reports there on DaxServer [315] and myself [316]. There is a discussion on the article talk page, but it's going nowhere fast. I'm hoping this will get some faster attention as they've continued the disruptive editing after all of the warnings and the original EWN report. Ravensfire (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits are a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sak7340 has been blocked by ToBeFree for two weeks and the article ECP'd for a while. Ravensfire (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Needs extending to indefinite, and talk page access removing, in my opinion: see this: [317] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've increased to indefinite. Daniel (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vauban Books

    From WP:BLPN. Vauban Books (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): This page, and particularly its first paragraph, is gross libel [...] Failing to properly edit may well invite legal action.[318]. Does this post violate or come close enough to violating WP:NLT? Does the OP's username violate our WP:CORPNAME, WP:COI or other policies? I'll note, this is apparently a publisher of the subject, Renaud Camus. See here for the identically named publisher promoting the subject for commercial purposes. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, WP:NLT is not appropriate here. It's just someone wanting to correct what they regard as inappropriate wording in Renaud Camus and, as is typical for someone new to Wikipedia, they have no idea about how to phrase their thoughts. They need guidance. The user name is a problem but please let's not get hung up about that either. Their thoughts should be considered at Talk:Renaud Camus if they respond there. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Graywalls reported by User:72.83.72.31

    Pages: See below
    User being reported: Graywalls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    A few days ago, User:Graywalls started on a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles:

    Graywalls ignored the discussion started on this page, Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds, and moved the discussion to: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America.

    It seems that whenever the discuss is not going their way they escalate the disagreement to another fourm. In the last day, this has happened:

    It's somewhat bewildering. On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents, here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy, and then there is this personal attack in the edit summary. I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [319]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [320]

    Comments:
    The following users may be able to help:@Evrik, Jergen, Btphelps, North8000, and Erp: See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive480#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result: Declined) Thank you. 72.83.72.31 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Long story short IMO definitely an "axe to grind" situation. Painful for several people and many articles. I wish this situation could get made better or fixed somehow. Maybe just a warning or something. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sending articles to AfD, redirecting articles or removing content thought by the editor to be bad are all normal editing activities. Certainly no-one is required to get permission from other editors before doing any of this.
      Also in regard to Boy Scouts of America removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page is simply untrue, as reading the talk page shows. Content was removed, there were a couple of back and forth edits with edit summaries which led to a talk page discussion, that talk page discussion showed consensus to keep the content and Greywalls hasn't tried to remove it since.
      And is this the right diff?[321] I don't see how it is a personal attack.
      If there is a discussion of COI with non-public information I would suggest that's resolved first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, this seems to be almost direct copy of an already resolved ANEW report added by Evrik. Second, I've looked over these and Graywalls is right in quite a number of cases, these are all significantly sourced to Boy Scouts of America sources with no real 3rd party sourcing for a lot of these. They should be trimmed/redirected/deleted. The BSA area is turning into a walled garden with number of those pinged defending those walls from all appearances. Don't shoot the messenger, weed your own garden before someone else does. spryde | talk 14:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I should note that it was resolved as not the right forum which means it could be re-opened elsewhere.
      I agree that some of the stuff that @Graywalls has raised do require fixing. However, it required a bit of work to get them to engage in the talk discussion on Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Undue_contents; Graywalls very early insisted on it being discussed on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America despite the guidelines stating that discussion take place on the article talk page first. This derailed serious discussion of the merits of some of their other edits.
      Graywales used the paid editor warning notification instead of the Conflict of Interest notification at User_talk:Btphelps#March_2024; this gave Btphelps the misunderstanding that the only type of Conflict of Interest is paid or the understanding that he was being accused of being a paid editor. My understanding is that he had a CoI for an organization article that he was a senior volunteer [i.e., unpaid] at at the time many of his edits took place; however, that connection was listed on his user page at that time. I note the standard COI warning template is less accusatory and explains that there are several types of potential conflicts of interest. This incident does make me appreciate why one of the core principles of Wikipedia needs to be WP:Civility. Erp (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It also highlights why templates are often less useful than editors wording there own comments. Simply mistakenly using the wrong template can lead to all kinds on acrimony. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New attack account harassing GuardianH

    Account blocked with promise of required SPI paperwork being completed shortly. Amortias (T)(C) 08:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Special:Contributions/Iamguardiansguardian is a new attack account harassing @GuardianH:. They have made 4 posts so far.diff Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Single-purpose account devoted to attacking GuardianH identified similar accounts as socks of Korensho.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Altay S.K. and Karşıyaka S.K. battleground behaviour

    Can I get a second (or more) set of eyes on the above.

    We've got an ongoing dispute between Delbatros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and various IP user(s). The crux of the matter appears to be of all things a logo/jersey design. Neither the IP(s) nor the registered editor is behaving particularly well and has resorted to edit warring and personal attacks towards each other, to add to the mix theres (potential) copyright concerns which dont appear valid false accusations of vandalism and definite ownership problems.

    Delbatros was blocked for edit-warring already and the Karşıyaka S.K. page semi-protected to try to resolve the dispute, the issue now appears to have migrated to Altay S.K. with similar behaviours from all involved, to prevent more damage at this point i've partially blocked Delbatros from the page and semi-protected it to prevent either user from further disruption.

    We do need a long term solution to this though and given the amount of action I've already done I'd appreciate wider opinions/assistance. Amortias (T)(C) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As an aside the IP's appear to be too variable to realistically target/notify a single page so I haven't notified any of the IP editors but they seem to be quite good at locating posts related to Delbatros. If anyone can think of a good way of notifying them please let me know for future reference. Amortias (T)(C) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to edit the pages of Turkish clubs in other languages ​​as well. I'm not making any wrong changes, I'm not vandalizing, I'm not a malicious user, I know Wikipedia rules, I'm just annoyed that the anonymous user (I know he has an existing wikipedia account) is following me with a different IP because he is wrong interfering with all my positive contributions. I started a new project to keep the jerseys of various branches of Turkish sports clubs up to date on other Wikipedias. We will design the jerseys with the support of relevant users, we will update the Wikipedia pages in other languages ​​of the relevant participants and branches of our sports clubs. (I will update most of the pages) DelbatrosTalk 08:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you'll only be updating them if they're correct. The IP, however, is correct regarding the away colours of Karşıyaka S.K. [322] Image from a match from 25 February. If you look at the version you have inserted, that can't be an away design because it's almost exactly the same as the home one. Google also suggests that neither of you are correct on the home shirts, they currently appear to be green/red halves [323] image from 24 March on the official FB page. As regards Altay S.K., Adidas do appear to be their shirt manufacturers, so the IP appears to be correct there Altay's official kit store though you appear to be correct on the kit colours (except that the away and third shirts should possibly be swapped). As regards behaviour, even if you were correct your behaviour on 16 March on Karşıyaka S.K. deserved a block (22 reverts!!) and you made 7 reverts today on Altay S.K. which deserved one as well, and I would be doing so if another admin hadn't partially blocked you. I suggest that this behaviour stops right away or you will find your ability to edit severely curtailed. Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A person who does not know what communication means, who only wants me to be blocked indefinitely, who does not dare to intervene or communicate with his own Wikipedia account (the same user who follows me with different IP numbers and tries to interfere with my contributions every time), is enough not to interfere with my contributions. You mentioned the jerseys of two clubs. Unfortunately, the current season jerseys of both clubs are not available on Wikipedia. I said that there is no harm in having the previous jerseys on the Altay SK page temporarily, and I say it again (the same jerseys are available on other Wikipedia pages). I cannot get rid of this anonymous user, I have to complain to the administrators about every intervention he makes against my positive contributions, but I do not want this because I do not want the administrators to waste their time. I think there is no harm in having the previous jersey on the page temporarily until we add the new jerseys. DelbatrosTalk 11:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, no. Let's be clear about this. You removed a correct jersey that the IP had edited (and edit-warred multiple times to do it), and you also edit-warred to insert an incorrect edit that a club's jerseys were made by Nike, when they clearly aren't. If you end up blocked, that is down to your subpar editing, not them. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:136.57.150.89 keeps making disruptive edits & continually reverting edits without reason

    User:136.57.150.89 is making edits which may or may not be disruptive. They are making edits without giving a reason, then when another users reverts their edits they decide to re-revert back to the edit they made. In they pass they’ve made it clear that they don’t like their edits getting revert without discussing with the user that reverted their edit in order to get to a conclusion that everyone can be satisfied with. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Said editor has been clearly edit warring at WGBH-TV, making the same deletion four times over the course of a day and a half, with the first three each undone by a different editor (the fourth is not yet undone.) User talk:136.57.150.89 shows a history of problematic behavior over the last few months. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) IP user has also been disruptive at User talk:Dipper Dalmatian, repeatedly reverting DD's WP:BLANKING of material that IP has added (which in itself are mere inappropriate demands that DD not revert his other edits.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, side note, said user started to harass me over reverting their edits. Even re-reverting the angered messages they left on my talk page after I reverted them. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked. I've blocked the IP for a week. Bishonen | tålk 17:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    User talk:KVixen NOTHERE and legal threat.

    KVixen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been told repeatedly that he can not use Wikipedia for promotion. He accuses us of discrimination and harassment, threatening legal action for targeting him. I'll add difs as I go. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This sparkling gem sums things up nicely-- Wikipedia:Discrimination noticeboard. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He sent me a email and told me "Do not target me again", which i never did. It was posted on my talk page. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were just blocked from editing. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft:KVixen and User:KVixen were promotional content deleted. much to his chagrin -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecx4) I've blocked indef as they were clearly here to self promote. Seriously can you let me get a word in edgewise? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in that case, just a pair of panties -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism slipped through

    Announcing that several IP accounts such as 2001:9E8:6CF7:E100:210A:D00C:2AC1:5D78 (talk · contribs), 2001:9E8:6CC3:8F00:DD4D:7522:FF18:8EDB (talk · contribs), 2001:9E8:6CC3:8F00:C8C3:70F9:2EF0:ED46 (talk · contribs) and 2001:9E8:6CC3:8F00:3547:52AD:FC0:64FB (talk · contribs) (Sorry I'm not proficient in identifying parent ranges) have been involved in inserting WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX edits in Years by Country articles involving irrelevant Netflix and Nickelodeon shows. Despite being inserted a month ago, no one else noticed that these edits were murky until I happened to stumble upon them by chance today. Raising the alarm for editors to start searching if other cases of vandalism have passed through related to these accounts. These start with 2016 articles and end in 2024.

    PS: they appear to have been active only once, last month. Borgenland (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal Attacks Policy Violations WP:NPA False Request for Removal of Articles by Saqib - Requesting Ban

    Dear Concern Admins,

    How are you doing,

    I truly appreciate work of admins in Wikipedia as you guys work hard to solve issues.

    I would like to report a complain against a user Saqib He has been very unreasonable to me, he has been insulting me again and again which is against wikipedia WP:NPA policy.

    He requested two articles for deletion which was written about two famous journalist Faysal Aziz Khan - A veteran journalist from Pakistan and also Ovais Mangalwala another senior journalist. He has been very unreasonable and he has doing personal attacks.

    Most of @Saqib contributions are on others talk pages he just created articles with no sufficient information and data. He has been violating WP:NPA policy with all users.

    We are all here to contribute Wikipedia give our precious time to make this place a better place and do the research to improve each other and he also allege me for creating paid articles, which is truly unacceptable. As editors we should take responsibility of each article we create as its our responsibility to continuously improving thus I keep improving my articles I give each day to improve my articles and if I get time I edit or improve or create new article.

    Whatever he reported as per policy I improved but he has being very unreasonable and continuedly disrespecting please your kind action is required.

    He should be reported even I tried to send message on his personal talk page to resolve the issue between us, I am very peaceful person I am here to improve quality of Wikipedia and improve articles in South Asian Region.

    As per Wikipedia WP:DRR policy. I hope you will assist me I do not know him personally being from same country he suppose to be supportive and improve articles together, if you review his profile he has doing personal attacks to everyone in his contribution history its mostly these maters. Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 20:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive480#User:Faizanalivarya_reported_by_User:Saqib_(Result:_Declined). @Bbb23: WP:BOOMERANG? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) If the target didn't reply to this already I would've reminded you of the text in the red box near the top of the page to notify an editor directly on their user talk page.

    He requested two articles for deletion which was written about two famous journalist Faysal Aziz Khan - A veteran journalist from Pakistan and also Ovais Mangalwala another senior journalist. He has been very unreasonable and he has doing personal attacks.

    Most of @Saqib contributions are on others talk pages he just created articles with no sufficient information and data. He has been violating WP:NPA policy with all users.
    — User:Faizanalivarya 20:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

    Please provide specific diffs for admins to review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So lets just break down your statements here
    • He requested two articles for deletion - which they are more than entitled to do so. A discussion will be held to determine the articles outcomes, they have made no summary decision they are asking for community input.
    • He has been very unreasonable and he has doing personal attacks - Where, provide diffs or links as evidence otherwise these claims are baseless.
    • Most of @Saqib contributions are on others talk pages - mine are probably 80% user talk pages or non-article space. This isn't a problem.
    • He has been violating WP:NPA policy with all users - Again where?
    • Whatever he reported as per policy I improved - that's what your meant to do.
    • But he has being very unreasonable and continuedly disrespecting, for the third time. Where you must evidence your claims.
    • If you review his profile he has doing personal attacks to everyone in his contribution history - And for the forth time. Where?

    Your repeated accusations without the evidence to back it up do seem to fall quite squarely into the region of exactly what no personal attacks is for. You may want to consider providing evidence for the claims your making as the case is yours to prove and at the minute the only personal attacks we can see are yours in your original statement and there's nothing to prevent your own behaviour being investigated. Amortias (T)(C) 21:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note diff [324] which seems to be a reasonably obvious unproven claim of bias would probably fall foul of NPA. Amortias (T)(C) 21:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Infact, I propose revoking their autopatrolled and pending changes review privileges for two reasons: Firstly, they've created BLPs of non-notable individuals. Secondly, they've been repeatedly inserting OR and promotional material into BLPs such as this, and this --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 22:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Amortias: I cannot make sense of your dif 327, I'm afraid. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote - "He does full fill the WP:NOTNEWS the editor has nominated this article for personal grudge towards the creator of article he is being victim of WP:PA which is against Wikipedia policy"

    Faizanalivarya is accusing Saqib of having a grudge towards themself and repeating his unsupported claims of NPA being breeched. Amortias (T)(C) 22:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was confused too. It would have been easier to understand what you were saying if you had actually linked a diff (such as [325]) rather than the whole page. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, must've misclicked the link I was after. Amortias (T)(C) 22:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jolly73881 is WP:NOTHERE

    Jolly73881 is a new editor here (account created 10 February 2024; under 150 edits). Since joining Wikipedia, they have engaged in edit-warring and incivility. Between March 18-20, another editor (Griboski) attempted to inform them about proper source use on their user page, with Jolly eventually responding, "Bro it's pixels chill out weirdo" ([326]). On March 30, Jolly received a 24-hour block for edit warring, then received a secondary warning on 26 March, to which they responded, "I'm not reading all of that :)" ([327]). March 30, Jolly reached out to me regarding a maintenance tag I placed on a page they created, Vratnica Attack, which used unreliable sources. I reviewed the page, then explained why the sources provided are unreliable ([328]). I also noticed a copyright violation, so I left the CV new message on their page, to which they responded, "What did I do to you bro" ([329]). As I was on their page, I noticed the responses to other editors, so I provided information about incivility ([330]). I later learned that the page they had created was previously deleted via discussion, so I tagged the page for CSD G4. Jolly responded to this by leaving a personal attack on my user page ([331]). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is in violation of no personal attacks I think Maestrofin (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not defending this editor but they are acting exactly like an editor whose been editing a month would act when their talk page starts filling up with warnings about policies they know nothing about and that the person they are trying to communicate with just tagged an article they created for speedy deletion. They left an immature comment on your talk page but it seems more childish than a personal attack.
    I think you underestimate how, as a very, very experienced editor, you hold the seat of power over a newbie editor like this one. You know how Wikipedia works, if you held an RFA, you very well could become an administrator. You are knowledgeable, they are not. This editor knows very little about Wikipedia procedures, processes and policies. They likely don't know what a noticeboard like ANI even is. Experienced editors that I respect know when to not be bothered by missteps by a new editor and when to be truly concerned over behavior that could damage the project. If I had been the target here, I would ignore the comments and keep an eye on this editor. If they did something truly egregious, like continued copyright mistakes or vandalism, then I think it might be time to consider a block. But I know that I was a clumsy new editor myself and if another editor had chosen to make a case against me on ANI, I could very well have received a NOTHERE block because, honestly, most of us don't know what the hell we are doing when we start as off as editors. I guess I'm asking you to be the bigger person and shrug off the small stuff. If this editor is truly a problem case (I'm more worried here about possible POV pushing) we will find out soon enough and an admin will probably issue a block. But I don't think we should block new editors over ignorance and indifference. Give them some rope, they will either learn to swim or screw up in a major way in the future. Just my two cents. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by User: Versace1608

    User: Versace1608 added the R&B genre to WizKid providing a source that says "his MIL album is a potent mix of Afrobeats and R&B", but that statement only implies that the album is an R&B album, not the singer Wizkid as a whole, as mentioned in WP: EXPLICITGENRE. I mentioned this in his talk page, and his response worried me as he was not discussing the edit itself, but he made a comment about me "not having anything better to do on Wikipedia" and threatened me to continue edit warring. But what was really offensive was what came afterwards, he left a message on Talk: Wizkid where he said "Find something else to do on here man. There are tons of South African-related articles that need to be improve.", which i found to be derogatory phrases based on me being South African. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like yet another Wizkid content dispute. How is "There are tons of South African-related articles that need to be improve" derogatory? Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is derogatory, because making comments on my race has nothing to do with the edit discussion we're having: it's totally out of place DollysOnMyMind (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He invited me to stop editing a page, and go edit some other ones, just because I am South African. That's pretty derogatory in my eyes DollysOnMyMind (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember to notify the other editor of this conversation properly on their talk page (even though you mentioned it on your talk page). Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) @DollysOnMyMind: As the text in the red box near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd: thanks for pinging me to this. I am asking myself the same question. I don't know what's deragatory about what I said. @DollysOnMyMind: you're from SA and I feel like you can spend some of your time improving SA-related content on this site. I am not telling you that you are obligated to do this. I only made that comment because I believe there are more important edits you can be making instead of focusing on reverting the sourced genres I added to the article. For your info DollysOnMyMind, I am the one who created the Wizkid article and brought it to GA articles. Let me reitarte it here, you do not have a valid reason to undo my edit and I refuted the reason you gave for removing R&B from the genre field. I added additional genres to the infobox and you removed them without giving any reason.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does your edit not violate WP: EXPLICITGENRE? How does me being from South Africa matter to this content dispute? DollysOnMyMind (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You claimed that my addition of R&B to the infobox violates EXPLICITGENRE, but have not demonstrated how it does. Wizkid has been making R&B music ever since he dropped his debut studio album, which fuses Afrobeat, R&B, reggae, and hip-hop. Per this source, his music is a mixture of afrobeats, R&B, dancehall, and reggae. His fourth studio album, Made in Lagos, was primarily an Afrobeats and R&B record. His fifth studio album, More Love, Less Ego, is a blend of Afropop, Amapiano and R&B. The publication NME specifically wrote that his songs "Money & Love" and "Flower Pads" see elements of funky jazz and R&B being embedded into Wizkid’s brand of Afropop. Per this article, Wizkid won an R&B category at the BET Awards for his song "Essence". Per all of the sources I cited here, you can clearly see that Wizkid has been doing R&B music since the start of his career. Being South African has nothing to do with this dispute. You were the one who mentioned it here and accused me of insulting you.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reason to bring up another editor's nationality, nor are you in any position to be dictating where another editor can or cannot edit. While not "derogatory" per se, it's definitely incivility and ownership behavior.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree SWATJester. Apologies for that. He is free to edit any article he chooses to. I only mentioned that because he can direct his energy to something more important instead of being hellbent on removing a sourced genre from the Wizkid article. Let me also that Wizkid's third studio album, Sounds from the Other Side, is a combination of Afrobeat, EDM, R&B, House and dancehall. Can DollysOnMyMind tell us how Wizkid is not a R&B artist even though R&B is a main genre in all his albums? DollysOnMyMind, do you have trustworthy references that dispute the classification of Wizkid's music as R&B?  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that Versace1608 has apologized, and the incivility was pretty mild in the first place, I don't think there's anything actionable for administrators to deal with here. Everything else is a content dispute. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User promoting Black Hebrew Israelites theories

    BLOCKED
    Blocked indef by Widr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for disruptive editing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    The iser Wmcdonald19751975 (talk · contribs) is using articles and talk pages solely to add randomly placed comments that support a fringe theory about race and genetics, including that Jesus was Black and in haplogroup E-M2; and that Kenneth MacAlpin, the first king of Scotland, was known as Ken the Niger and was a Black Hebrew.

    There are some older edits from 2021 regarding the presence of E-M2 in Scotland. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Propose indef. Hard to say if user is trolling or spamming outlandish fringe theories, but certainly not here to build an encyclopedia. Jeppiz (talk) 00:20, 31 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=1216477174"