Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    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

    Follow up from VPM[edit]

    Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps[edit]

    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]
      • Please take the time to reread the above post and the linked discussion. If you feel that everything outlined in that analysis is perfectly above-board, may I ask if you have performed comparable edits while a WiR? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • For example, taking this recent diff into consideration, have you ever created a page for a friend while a WiR, and subsequently edited it after you had co-authored an article together and/or one of you had begun to supervise the other's education programme? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 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]
      • First you misattribute a view I do not hold to me, then you impugn my integrity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 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."[1] 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[2] (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[3][4] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[5]. 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 [6] 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)[edit]

    • 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[7][8][9][10][11], 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.[12] (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. ...      ) [13][14] (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.[15] 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[16] 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)[edit]

    • 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 [17] 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[18]. 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]
      Oppose per Vanamonde93. I think that a ban doesn't serve the project, and that this entire thread will hopefully be sufficient to change her behavior. Mason (talk) 02:13, 4 April 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[19]. 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)[edit]

    • 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:
      • [25] 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. [26] 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: [27]. 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.[28] 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,[29] 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)[30], 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.[31] As can be seen in that link, the sources you removed[32] were not the versions of the sources I originally added,[33] 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.[34] 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 [35] (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 [36] 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]

    Courtesy Break (4)[edit]

    • 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]
    • Support on the basis that it seems a no brainer after several hours of digging through this, and per Levivich in particular. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I fail to immediately identify misconduct. I also am a Wikimedian in Residence, and Rachel is my colleague and one of the more active contributors to the meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network. Here are some options for improving the situation:
      1. Advocate for more clear rules for institutional partnerships I do not clearly identify a transgression in this case. I think the problem here is dissatisfaction with the existing guidelines for institutional partnerships. Wikipedia will fail without institutional expert partnerships. We are in an existential crisis for lack of such partnerships. We need many, many more of them. Develop and impose any rules for such partnerships, but whatever the case, have clarity. I support clear directions for Rachel to change behavior, but the topic ban proposed is not a fit because those are for misconduct. I do not see willful misconduct. This user for years has tried to follow the rules and has brought in a lot of university funding and labor to comply with the rules. The user expresses intent to follow any suggested rules or clarifications.
      2. Pressure the Wikimedia Foundation to invest in partnership infrastructure In The Signpost this week WMF CEO asks how to get more personality into Wikipedia. Beyond individual personalities, there are institutional personalities which have major impact including universities, museums, research institutes, and other expert organizations. The WMF has never collaborated with Wikimedians in Residence to develop foundational infrastructure for growing these kinds of partnerships. Institutions are going to invest in digitial media, and when an organization has $100,000 to spend on media, it will be divided among Instagram, Twitter, Wikipedia and the rest. There are lots of reasons why Wikipedia is best for organizations like universities, but it is really hard to crowdsource that argument without WMF backing. Wikipedia should often be getting the biggest slice of communication funding from institutions, but it rarely does, and I regret when universities give money to commercial social media platforms when Wikipedia is a better fit. Considering that Wikimedian in Residence programs attract millions of dollars of Wikimedia investment a year, there should be more obvious and public WMF investment in keeping such resource inflows healthy and regulated in partnership with wiki editors. Take this case to the WMF and ask for help in securely keeping institutional partnerships regulated.
      3. Bring discussions to the user group meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network is the official Wikimedia registered organization for managing Wikimedians in Residence. It is a voluntary membership organization, and it has no budget or resources other than volunteer participation, but it is a hub for centering Wikimedian in Residence guidelines and enforcement. This case with Rachel is not a one-off case. There is no hope of crowdsourcing individual review of all the Wikimedians in Residence in all the projects at scale. I am not saying that anyone has to go through the Wiki in Residence organization, but it is an opportunity to negotiate global multicultural norms perpetually when there are not other established channels for doing this. If anyone is able to draft some policy or guidelines, then discussing it with Wikimedians in Residence seems like a reasonable next step, and that organization presents the opportunity for doing so.
      4. Avoid conflating marketing with other kinds of conflict As a Wikimedian in Residence I regret that we in Wikipedia lack the language and experience to distinguish WP:SPAs who promote products, brands, and autobiographies versus editors who are attempting to share subject matter expertise in collaboration with reputable institutions. We currently use the term "conflict of interest" or COI for both kinds of behavior, but I do not find that language helpful because the situations are so different. The first is 99% of COI, and 99% unhelpful, while institutional partnerships are 1% of COI, but 99% helpful. The discussion I see above conflates promotionalism with institutional transfer of knowledge. I agree that both should be regulated, but I do not like seeing university staff treated like they are selling herbal supplements to cure cancer. Considering the high value of good institutional partnerships, I wish that evaluation and enforcement of such partnerships could begin with more focused rules than the ones we apply to spammers. Framing partnerships as a type of spam brings unnecessary negativity into the conversations.
      Bluerasberry (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network is the official Wikimedia registered organization for managing Wikimedians in Residence" I agree with the bulk of Bluerasberry's well-considered points (the last bullet point in particular), but no, WREN is not the manager of WiRs, "official " or otherwise. Most WiRs do not participate in WREN, and none that I know of have ever been "managed" by it - certainly none of my several residencies have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "we in Wikipedia lack the language and experience to distinguish WP:SPAs who promote products, brands, and autobiographies versus editors who are attempting to share subject matter expertise in collaboration with reputable institutions." please substantiate this claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: One way to substantiate the claim is to distinguish the spammers versus Wikimedians in Residence. Like I said, "The first is 99% of COI, and 99% unhelpful, while institutional partnerships are 1% of COI, but 99% helpful." When the process, circumstances, and outcomes are so different, why apply the same abstract evaluation to both?
    What kind of response would be helpful? Bluerasberry (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And which category do Rachel Helps (BYU)'s AML related edits fall under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: We do not have guidelines for regulating what paid Wikipedia editors do away from their paid roles, but if we did develop such guidelines, then those would be Wikimedian in Residence rules.
    Without pay, she created a biography of someone who does research in her field. This is common among wiki editors. Later, circumstances changed, and the subject of the biography became a professional colleague. Spammers edit on the scale of hours for a few thousand dollars. Rachel has been a Wikimedian in Residence for 8 years, and has fundraised hundreds of thousands of dollars for wiki development in the process. It is to be expected that if one edits in a field at this scale then distant colleagues will sometimes become closer. This is not comparable to a spammer getting a one-day commission to write the biography of a CEO, but the tools in this evaluation are those same spammer rubrics. This is not a case of a spammer being negligent to comply, or dodging disclosure. I think she tried to comply in an uncertain environment where rules are unclear. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most spammers on wikipedia are unpaid. Rachel Helps (BYU) was negligent to comply *and* dodged disclosure (they have admitted to both), have you not been paying attention? I was not aware of that extensive fundraising, can you substantiate that with sources? In regards to "We do not have guidelines for regulating what paid Wikipedia editors do away from their paid roles" we actually do, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: If you want of anyone else wants to check my attention then I can meet anyone for video chat and post the recording here. Humans are made for voice to voice discussion. Much is lost by posting text to a talk page.
    University staff in the United States consume ~US$100k/year each and Rachel has been going 8 years. Even part time this is $100ks for Wikipedia development.
    Rachel's "confession" is humility and willingness to agree to any regulation, not an admission of negligence or misconduct. One deficiency of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is that it does not explain why a paid editor cannot simply disclose the entirety of their activity. If it were allowed, all Wikimedians in Residence would want all of their edits automatically highlighted to achieve indisputable universal disclosure. Wiki reviewers do not want to maximize disclosure because over-disclosure is a flood of excess information. Rachel did appropriate activity. The problem is not her behavior, but that our evaluation process confuses and fails to distinguish random unwanted spammers versus institutional partnerships which follow the rules. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But Helps engaged in unwanted spam and didn't follow the rules, thats why we're here. Also note that what you just described is not fundraising. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I can ask—if you've only fail[ed] to immediately identify misconduct, I'm confused that you've !voted as Oppose while the post itself reads as a Comment. Remsense诉 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense: Can you ask your question in other words? Correct - I see no misconduct, and correct - my oppose vote comes with a list of points which, depending on perspective, either explain how to prevent problems, or which describe the cause of problems. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I interpreted immediately as meaning you didn't spend time going through the details of the case. Remsense诉 20:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Informed meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network See meta:Talk:Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @RadioactiveBoulevardier: Remember last week when you said "citation needed" up above? Here it is :-) Levivich (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At the time wasn’t it WP:CRYSTAL? 😁 RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well...no, not really. The last time this was brought up with this editor, that's exactly what we saw. Many Wikipedians in Residence see this as a threat to their project. Valereee (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, given the laundry list of problems assembled by editors such as levivich and the lack of opposes that actually address the problem editing. XeCyranium (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Vanamonde93 and Rhododendrites. A lot of this seems to be bureaucracy for the sake of it, or being punitive rather than focusing on improving the wiki. If an editor is receptive to concerns and trying to fix mistakes, punishing them harder seems counterproductive (And is much less rope than we usually give). The fact that we have this much discussion on the topic suggests to me we need to revisit COIN policies and tighten them to be clearer. @Bluerasberry:'s suggestions may also be worth discussing further. Soni (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Vanamonde93 and Rhododendrites. I'm not minimizing the fact that there have been problematic edits, but I believe Rachel understands the issues and is capable of editing in the future without causing further problems. I also believe a topic ban would be harmful in that it would prevent her from helping out at those articles, as I believe she would. And a topic ban should not be punitive; it should be done to address a problem the community cannot resolve in other ways. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for Thmazing[edit]

    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]
    • Support; Thmazing appears to be both more culpable and less able to recognize and fix problems with their editing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed. As User talk:Thmazing § Conflict of interest (permalink) shows, the editor repeatedly cited their self-published blog posts (from Substack, Blogspot, and at least one personal website) in Mormonism-related articles, including articles not directly related to the Association for Mormon Letters. These are clear violations of the policy against promotion and the guideline against citation spam. New editors who do this are indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as a routine matter; see the reports on the username noticeboard for examples. The editor's use of deflection when asked about their promotional edits and conflict of interest (e.g. "I know you just got out of arbitration yourself and so I can understand why you'd want to share the love, but I feel like the conversation we've had has already solved this problem.") is highly concerning and shows that they are not an appropriate fit for this topic area. — Newslinger talk 04:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per extensive discussion above and elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per evidence presented by others. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban for high conflict-of-interest, topic-ban as second choice - Refer to my comments in re the Rachel Helps topic-ban above; they apply equally here, with the caveat that we have community banned editors for editing blatantly to further their organisation's goals on the grounds of irreconciliable conflict-of-interest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:52, 16 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) 22:45, 16 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". [37] 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 [38] within the Elias: An Epic of the Ages. One month after that you declared that it was your blog [39]. 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[40] 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 [41] 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]
    • Support per Serial. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Putting aside the clear inappropriateness of citing to themselves (and to a blog in doing so, no less), and the contributing without disclosing that and other conflicts of interest regarding an organization in which they had a leading role (with both activities frankly such plainly unacceptable behaviours under fundamental policies that we can only assume bad faith or WP:CIR concerns, either one or the other), there is also just the issue of mammoth amount of IDHT and pushback since that conduct has been revealed.
      On the other hand, as easy and as full-throated as my support is for the tban from AML subject matter, I am equally opposed to a ban from Mormon/LDS topics generally; the implicit notion that a person who cares enough about a belief system (religious or otherwise) to join a body which studies and/or celebrates said belief system thereby accrues an automatic COI in regard to that belief system is clearly an untenable standard for this project. SnowRise let's rap 09:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Snowrise. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing concerns[edit]

    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 [42] 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[edit]

    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[43]. 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[44] (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[45]. 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[46], 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 [47]. 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?[edit]

    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: [48].
    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 [49]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AndyFielding - failure to address community concerns[edit]

    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]

    bump to prevent auto-archiving -- FMSky (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bump again Maestrofin (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    bump --FMSky (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Monarchy of Canada[edit]

    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[50], disruptive cite tagging,[51][52][53] 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.[54] 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: [55]; Removed citation added by Miesianiacal's old account: [56]; Removed unverified claim added by Miesianiacal: [57]. 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[58] or refusing to listen when challenged on civility: [59][60]. 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: [61]). 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 [62] backtracking from [63]. 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 [64]) 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" [65], 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" [66]; “you are ruining more than one article on my watchlist” [67]; "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" [68]; 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]
    I withdraw "nasty and desperate"[69] though I note that the false claim that provoked it (made by Miesianiacal for no apparent reason other than to attack me since its content was not part of the discussion until then) remains unwithdrawn. DrKay (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Amended 21:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's stricken. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My edit on 4 March: [70], 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: [71] 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, [72] 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.[73]. 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]

    Noting here that Miesianiacal opened a separate discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Long-used sources being questioned after sourcing was challenged at Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Residences. In my view the RSN posting substantially misrepresents the issue--no one's challenging reliability, just what the sources say and what claims they support. It's an unhelpful way to proceed. Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The disputing editor deleted information and all its sources from Rideau Hall. He made as associated deletion from the infobox at Monarchy in Canada. He has expicitly stated the provided sources don't support the statement at Rideau Hall or the infobox content at Monarchy of Canada because they aren't "a law, a regulation, an official document from the Department of Canadian Heritage or NCC or Parks Canada"; ie not official. How, then, did I misrepresent the dispute at WT:RS?
    I promised up above to try to engage the wider community when communication around a dispute had stalled. If I went to the wrong place to ask for input, I apologize. But, the assertion that asking is itself "unhelpful" feels like I'm being boxed into a no-win situation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In fairness, these recent edits and others like this one are problematic. Our articles on Rideau Hall, Monarchy of Canada and Official residence have identified Rideau as the official residence of the monarch for years. That is the stable version. Recently, there has been a strong disregard for reliable sources happening at Monarchy of Canada related articles, combined with shouting down of editors who question the radical changes happening there (as I have already outlined above).-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see discussion at Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Residences. Incidentally, the current article does state that "The sovereign's and governor general's official residences are Rideau Hall in Ottawa and the Citadelle in Quebec City" and there is no proposal to remove that sentence. The discussion is about 1) whether having an "official residence" makes one a resident, 2) how much prominence to give the status of Rideau Hall in the article 3) whether inclusion in the infobox is merited or misleading. Also, while I did tag the infobox entry there has been no edit war over this. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TonyTheTiger is gaming the WikiCup through GAN spam[edit]

    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[edit]

    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]
      • Support TBAN from WikiCup and content review processes per too many editors to mention. Having waded through decades of egregious, I didn't hear that, and combative comments, not least in this discussion, it seems clear that if Tony has heard of the first law of holes they don't believe WP:HOLES applies to them, or still haven't grasped the extent of their errors. I think, regretfully, that the community needs to - finally - impose the self control which Tony lacks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there's enough participation at this point that someone uninvolved can review and make a decision on this. Wizardman 22:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal for GAN TBAN exception for already actively reviewed GANs[edit]

    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 (closed now) 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 (closed now), Talk:Chris Hill (basketball)/GA1. starship.paint (RUN) 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Junk the Wikicup[edit]

    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[edit]

    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]

    Someone please review this thread[edit]

    This thread has been open for 11 days now, with 72 people participating. TonyTheTiger hasn't edited this thread since 30 March 2024 ([74]). I have been checking in on this thread periodically (but haven't actually participated in it), have noticed the activity here winding down, and seriously doubt that much of importance will change soon. I'd like to echo @Wizardman's suggestion to have someone uninvolved review this, make any appropriate actions, and close this thread. ‍ Relativity 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SergeWoodzing repeated incivility at Talk:Where is Kate?[edit]

    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]
    • In my experience, Serge has a history of histrionics, especially regarding royalty. I'd be a lot more tolerant if Serge was a newcomer, but he's a seasoned veteran. Being passioned about something is not an excuse to blast away with accusations implying other editors of spiteful intentions. I'm not arguing against the relevance of the complaint as such, but the tone of the criticism is anything but constructive and is an open invitation to drama. I would really appreciate if Serge could try to tone down his approach overall. Peter Isotalo 16:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience the user and I have disagreed on article content issues a few times, where to my knowledge I have not been aggressive, insulting (such as "a history of histrionics") nor unreasonable, whereas this user has hardly been willing to complain about anything else but me in those discussions. We have also agreed at times. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would Wikipedia be a better place without the quoted hyperbolic histrionics? Yes. Is there a breach of policy or is otherwise sanctionable? No. (Or at least, provided it doesn't carry on.) DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should remain calm and carry on - but SergeWoodzing is absolutely correct as far as I can see. The Kate article is rife with Wiki violations, starting with the very title - or heck the concept! Broken policies include WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. I'm not sure what's to be gained here. At the same time - not here? Look at even their recent constructive editing history. Why is User:IgnatiusofLondon making this claim? FYI there's now a discussion under place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination). Nfitz (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As my complaint here said, WP:NOTHERE applies only [i]nsofar as this topic area is concerned, which is why I requested a ban on Where is Kate? and its talkpage (but not any deletion-associated discussions, where the editor has made and can continue to make valuable contributions). I'm sorry: I should have been clearer what I meant by "topic area", which really just concerns this article and its talkpage. The tone of the editor's complaints over several days on the article's talkpage, combined with the fact that they have not edited the article itself, has, in my view, been unconstructive and disruptive to editors working in good faith on improving the article. In my view, this behaviour, if continued, would be harrassment. Still, SergeWoodzing seems to have heeded warnings from other users to tone it down/rest assured they were heard the first, second, and third times. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I have not received, deleted, archived nor otherwise hidden any warning about this on my talk page. If there have been what could be called "warnings" from other users, I'd certainly like to know. My comment above (beginning "Thank you! ...") covers my attitude now. Enough? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think @Serial Number 54129 may have been attempting to warn you with this comment, though it wasn't clear if this nonsensical crackpottery referred to your comment (which is how I interpreted it) or Where is Kate? (which is how you interpreted it). IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, not what they were saying, but rather how it was being said. A stream of hysterical histrionics is clearly not the right approach to AfD, and as noted by others, serves only to heighten rather than decrease the temperature—in an already overheated kitchen. ——Serial Number 54129 14:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IgnatiusofLondon: And, looking back, it seems they carried on the hysterical histrionics a few days later. Rather bizarre and hard to take seriously. ——Serial Number 54129 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that was the edit that prompted me to come to ANI. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, per Mackensen, who also notes temperatures... apologies for forward copying (?) of your post! I had this tab open a couple of hours but forgot to reply! ——Serial Number 54129 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And thanks to IgnatiusofLondon for the ping. ——Serial Number 54129 14:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

    My observation here is simply this: impassioned rhetoric raises the temperature of the debate instead of lowering it, and leads to sideshows such as this ANI thread. I doubt if such rhetoric convinces the unconverted. Since there's some confusion about whether SergeWoodzing has been "warned" or not, let me remove all doubt, though this is less a warning than well-intentioned advice. Being correct isn't enough. Raising the temperature does nothing to help resolve the underlying issue. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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]
    It's going to be impossible to clean up that article while this goes on. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we could block Guswen from editing there for COI edits and all the spas from editing there for edit-warring? That would at least allow some cleanup without needing a determination on the sockpuppetry issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With the exception of one article, it looks like just about everything Guswen has been doing for years has been COI/self-promotion, puppetry or canvassing (including what he was blocked for in 2022), using flagrantly unreliable sources [75], edit-warring to defend synthesis [76][77][78] at multiple pages [79][80][81][82][83] among other reasons, and trying to insert numerology into the article on pi. This is not a one-article problem. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit-warring at Assembly theory and the filibustering on the Talk page are still going on. Guswen is still denying the most obvious COI that I've seen in quite a while. His most recent edit to the article attributes to me an opinion that I did not voice. (I did say that press releases should not be used as sources, but I pointed out that subject-matter expert blog posts were better, and I also argued that this is one of the uncommon cases where citing an arXiv preprint could be permissible.) Can someone, anyone, please do something, anything about this? XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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: [84] "I won't be participating too actively in any further discussion." and [85] "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[edit]

    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.[86] 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[87] over many years[88], 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[edit]

    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 [89] 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. [90] 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: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95].
    "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]
    Feel free to post diffs demonstrating that Thomas B raised the issue at multiple forums. You can't because he didn't. He raised it once at WP:BLPN, which was the appropriate forum. What would you call it when the same group of editors are the same ones on multiple threads all calling for someone's head? The same group of editors complaining loudly that he was forum shopping for raising it in one forum. WCMemail 20:17, 2 April 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. [96]. 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 [97] [98] 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]
    I didn't. WCMemail 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you think you are bringing it up or not, your repeated insistence on your unique view that I transgressed my anti-bludgeon restriction - which you do in an irrelevant section, and without any kind of evidence - is pretty clearly the kind of WP:ASPERSION that CIVIL tells editors not to make. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally fucking did, right there, which is why I responded. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:48, 3 April 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]
    Thomas B's contribution history is quite clear, you're welcome to check it for yourself. Before he was brought to ANI, he raised it at WP:BLPN and that was the appropriate forum. He hadn't forum shopped. WCMemail 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think I see the disagreement. It's true that Thomas B did not open the first BLPN topic on Tim Hunt, though he was the first respondent and contributed extensively. Also in his defense, there wasn't a crystal-clear consensus from that one, so him subsequently starting a discussion on the article talk was likewise appropriate. Subsequently raising it at BLPN could also be interpreted as part of WP:DR, seeking outside opinions.
    So, on the whole, I agree forum shopping is not a valid reason for sanctions. However, I'd assert that disruptive editing, evidencing WP:IDHT in this very thread, is a valid reason. Whether his behavior counts as disruptive is a judgement call. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're linking to the NPOVN discussion, which was started by User:LokiTheLiar during the initial edit war with Thomas B (at that moment it was a 1 vs. many, where the 1 was Thomas B). Both BLPN threads ([99] and [100]) were later started by Thomas B. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You claimed he forum shopped to WP:NPOVN, which you now acknowledge was done by another editor. Prior to the page ban, he'd only raised it in one forum. As a BLP, WP:BLPN was the correct forum and where it should have been raised in the first place. 22:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    • 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: [101] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [102] (continuing to double down) and [103] (no one asked any question here either) and [104] (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 [105] (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.[106] 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]
    • Support We are passed the point where consensus is clear around the Tim Hunt issue, the continued bludgeoning and forumshopping is disruptive. Enough is enough. T-ban. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia[edit]

    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[edit]

    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]
    Aside from posting evidence of this happening at WP:ANI with supporting diffs? For example, [107],[108]. I've taken the page off my watch list, took a break, the thread dropped off the page with no action and its being resurrected seeking sanctions when there are no urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I've already demonstrated the accusation of misconduct are unfounded. Fling enough mud, often enough, eventually it sticks. WCMemail 18:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, file a formal request for sanctions, which you repeatedly avoid doing. You're casting aspersions and hounding by not actually requesting action, but still making accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that it's actually a bad idea for WCM to file such a request as it would be baseless and retaliatory. It would only expend even more of what is remaining of WCM's rope. I'm not the best in Wikipedia's policy, but I can imagine this backfiring even to a WP:CBAN, which we should try to avoid. So WCM just needs to stop casting aspersions, stop bringing all this in user talk pages, and move on. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:19, 3 April 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]

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

    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: [109]. – 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]
      Good lord people, this “socking” served the purpose of answering the question asked of him, in the venue in which it was raised, with full clarity about who it was and why. Would it have been bureaucratically nicer if he had posted exactly the same question on his talk-page and then asked someone to copy it here? Yes, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're going to believe this whole thing about posting at XX:59, I'd like to hear a believable reason for where it came from. They've been here about years and have over 2000 edits. Yet the swathe of XX:59 postings only really begins in March this year, here. There are a few earlier waves of edits in March and October 2023, but basically, no pattern is apparent between June 2023 edit and June 2023, almost year later. I think a pretty convincing explanation is due. My edit summary reads bizarre verging on the trolling; we should be mindful of blocking the latter while accepting the former. ——Serial Number 54129 13:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I'm back from my holiday, I see the user is still blocked and there are lingering questions over the block evasion as well as copyright/attribution. However, my original block was just a temporary indef when it looked like there was an unauthorized bot creating articles of unknown origin. It is clear that is not the case, so unless there are objections I intend to unblock today. I'll say that an unblock would be solely for the botting and without prejudice, so any other block evasion or copyright/attribution issues can be handled normally without it being considered wheel warring. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reviewed this user's articles a number of times as a member of NPP. They always have appeared excellent and of subjects we need. Are we seriously blocking them for producing high-quality content too quickly? That's plainly ridiculous. Unless I'm missing something, Barr Theo should be unblocked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • This seems to be because he posted articles at the same time each day due to a schedule? My response: so what? I did something similar last month, creating one article every day. If anything, I think a barnstar is warranted, not an indefinite block! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        In this case, it was creating multiple articles (many being BLPs), in alphabetical order, in the same minute. Creating one article per day is prolific but normal, creating four articles in a minute looks indistinguishable from a bot. If it was a bot, that creates issues of where the content was coming from, since bots don't write original articles that aren't AI garbage. Now that he's explained, I'm satisfied there is no botting going on so I've unblocked the editor. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Graywalls reported by User:72.83.72.31[edit]

    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: [110]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [111]

    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?[112] 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]
      "Almost direct copy" is not accurate, nor the insinuation that it places or impression that it leaves. The referred-to post was for edit warring and was closed and the reason given for the closure is because it was stale. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few notes:
    • BSA is so large and decentralized with maybe 100 million people having gone through it and with such a long history that saying that a source isn't third party is like saying that if an article is written about humans that anything written by a human isn't third party or is a COI.
    • It's common and needed, in policy and OK that coverage of boring enclyclopedic details about is often via primary sources. That is not a basis for removing material.
    • One of the listed articles is about a total different scouting organization
    • There a huge latitude with "not explicitly breaking the rules" that allows them to be used to pursue an "ax to grind". Stricter-then-the Wiki-norm on applying/interpreting them, patterns / degree of targeting etc, using provisions in unintended ways to exclude coverage etc. This is not a good thing.
    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BSA isn't some shared aspect of the human condition, it is an organization with a vested interest in promoting itself. Sources coming from BSA and its affiliates are not independent and often not secondary, end of discussion. Policy also requires articles not be based on primary sources. If these articles are built from such sources, there is every reason to have tags. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Articles built from" is pretty vague and so can be interpreted many different ways. There is certainly nothing wrong with using primary sources in articles. Policy acknowledges that and provides the particulars on doing that. As long as those are followed, that is not a reason/basis for knocking out material that is sourced to them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JolleJay is only stating policy, WP:PRIMARY Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. (bolding in the original). Tagging such articles with {{Primary}} would be entirely correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the subject; you are changing the subject which was removing material based on it having a primary source. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply and JolleJay's specifically relate to the complaint at hand, and you have still not provided any diffs or rational for why those actions are against policy. Instead, as I see below, you have simply repeated you unsubstantiated aspersion that Graywalls has an 'axe to grind' for the 5th or 6th time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking of the subject, which of the various BSA-interested accounts set up this thread while logged out, and have they informed user Graywalls of its existence via notification at his talk page? Axad12 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure it was Evrik (or if it wasn't then they've copied without attribution) as it's an exact copy from the edit warring noticeboard (that they also removed it from.) And no Graywalls has not been informed of this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now informed Graywalls as to the existence of this thread, since no one else did. Canterbury Tail talk 15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject includes tagging articles as excessively reliant on primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was taking it as a response to my post which it was indented under rather than the OP. I'm more concerned about deletion of sourced, useful enclyclopedic information than tags and my post reflected that.North8000 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted your last bullet point as encompassing all the behaviors described by the OP, including tagging. JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else in this discussion mentioned "walled garden". When I visit an article, then I stumble related "walled garden" articles full of personal website, blog based contents, I'm not ashamed to say I remove that sort of stuff. That's not axe grinding. That's cleaning up issues found across interlinked articles. Say I go to an article on Chevrolet Corvette and find things sourced to fan sites, and identify related articles sourced to blog or unambiguously failing WP:RS. Going through and pruning those contents is reasonable editing. @North8000:, adding a chock full of information sourced to whitestag.org, or pinetreeweb is a neutral weight as well as reliability concern. It's also a serious COI concern when the insertion of whitestag.org into numerous articles is predominantly done by someone affiliated with whitestag.org. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls: Doubtless there are areas that need work. My goal is for the articles to have accurate, encyclopedic information. And my expectation is just apply rules/guidelines in the way that is the norm for Wikipedia, and positive collaboration for improvement of articles by persons that are active at the articles. Per my posts it didn't look like that but maybe (and hopefully) I was wrong. Either way, if you're cool with all of that maybe we're all set. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @North8000:, this is quite black and white. The matter discussed here has minimal room for interpretation of WP:RS. A page about different types of Latte served at Julie's Coffee with a wall of text written about various ingredients, purpose and story behind products citing Julie's Coffee website, press release and Julie's buddies' blog sites is a hard no. Your argument saying that a source isn't third party is like saying that if an article is written about humans that anything written by a human isn't third party or is a COI. is ridiculous given how long you've been here and the amount of edits you've made. I believe you clearly understand that's a completely unacceptable sourcing to primary source. Graywalls (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Graywalls:If there are items that are egregious, 99% self-promotional and unenclyclopedic as your hypothetical example (even aside from the hypothetical example being a for-profit business) I would agree with you and be the first to take them out. And maybe you have found some like that that I haven't seen. But it's also possible that (respectfully) you are giving a straw man description/hypothetical examples as an argument regarding basic, neutral encyclopedic information of the type that secondary sources don't cover. Secondary sources typically don't repeat basic facts about an organization's facilities, methods, programs, objectives etc.. This is one of the many reasons that primary sources are explicitly allowed subject to the specified conditions. North8000 (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will note that two of the three items @Graywalls was trying to remove from the Boy Scouts of America article were their version of the Scout oath and Scout law. I'm still trying to figure out whether his problem was in how they were presented or with them being in the article at all. Note the oath (usually called a promise by most other scouting organizations) and the law are fundamental in all Scouting organizations and they often differ (they have to be memorized and the wording is often referred to in third party articles about scouting [or in lawsuits over discrimination]). The organization itself is probably the most accurate source for the current wording. Note I'm not a BSA volunteer or paid staffer (beyond a couple of times as a kid when I provided grunt work for an Eagle project). Erp (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So IMO there has been an "axe to grind" by @Graywalls: situation which may already be over or scaled back, or maybe this discussion will help. Maybe we should just see how it goes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ever since Graywalls submitted evidence of a COI via confidential channels he's been subjected to allegations of acting in bad faith by both the user that the evidence relates to and other BSA-interested accounts (who have all summoned each other to the various discussions). So, who has the "axe to grind"?
    Surely a user should be able to raise COI concerns without being treated in this way? Axad12 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think this is a little difficult. Graywalls says he's submitted secret evidence. The implication is that one or more users has a COI, the disclosure of which is tantamount to outing. If the report is legitimate it's indicative of a problem; if it's not then the well is poisoned. There's an entire arbitration case open right now about how to handle these situations. Meanwhile, there's really no way to get an update on whether this report was deemed actionable. Mackensen (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mackensen, MER-C, and GeneralNotability: where does paid-en-wp email go anyways? I asked Drmies and they weren't sure. That's where the COI evidence was submitted. Graywalls (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely don't know how that process works. I appreciate that transparency is difficult, and is compounded by the nature of what amounts to unpaid, volunteer committee work. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a distinct VRT queue accessible by functionaries. MER-C 16:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also notified the person of possible COI, btphelps with request for permission to reveal evidence for discussion. So far, they haven't responded. Per Wikipedia rules on privacy, I'm not going to reveal any of it without permission. The portion of it I've revealed was only what the user once had on their user page. It isn't like other editors can not find these "secret" evidence through their own independent research, however the policy in place on Wikipedia wouldn't allow me to direct others to it or link to it. Graywalls (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey everyone, I've been travelling, and unwilling to engage in this while on vacation. I'm also going to Opening Day for the Washington Nationals this afternoon. So, let me say this: At every opportunity, the community of editors working on Scouting related articles has attempted to engage Graywalls, who has instead escalated their negative behavior. Yes, many articles need to be refined or tuned up - but it's hard to do so when running a fire drill to save multiple articles. I'd like to see everyone take a deep breath and work to improve these articles. I'd also ask Graywalls to engage with the community and work with us collaboratively. Now, I'm off to pay too much money for a beer and a hot dog. See you later this month. --evrik (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Evrik Were you the IP who started this thread, as Canterbury Tail suggested? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After spending a weekend away and getting more and more ticked that people are still attacking the messenger, I am flat out going to say it: Most of the articles "attacked" by Graywalls need to be deleted or rewritten. COPE, Leadership Training, NAYLE, and Philmont Training Center are pretty much only sourced to BSA, BSA connected sources or have a trivial mention in third party sources. They need to be rewritten to comply with WP:N and WP:SOURCE. Having BSA and BSA connected sources are fine but not when 90% of the article is just that with zero third party sources. Scouting is a horrendous mess of WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, and blog sources. If I were more active, I would do the same thing Graywalls is doing but even more so, but I can't be arsed to explain why "Johnny Walker's Scouting Milestones" is an inappropriate source to use for numerous cites in an an article. Instead of being defensive, actually look, listen, and understand what Graywalls is doing. Because this ANI section is only going to bring more eyeballs down on these articles and not everyone is as nice as Graywalls is being. spryde | talk 22:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    sp, thank you for sticking up for Graywalls. Interesting how selective the IP was in reporting this matter. I've run through dozens of BSA-related articles, many of them full of cruft (think of all the badges and whatnot) and organizational information (sourced to BSA blogs and websites, if sourced at all. The most recent run-in I had with one of the pinged editors was at Philmont Scout Ranch camps, where they were edit warring against three editors (look at it, and look at the references). When they finally left the redirect alone, they simply stuck all that crap into Philmont Scout Ranch. As far as I can tell, any editor who's gone up against this coterie has gotten all kinds of unsavory stuff thrown at them, and their conflict of interest is just so obvious. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sp:, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Yes, the articles do need to be improved. Please see my comments below. --evrik (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: you bring up a discussion we probably have had before. Many of the articles get to big, so people split out the smaller sections, like Philmont and Philmont camps. Please see my comments below.--evrik (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently stumbled onto Trail Life USA and met stiff resistance to tagging there as well, and that subject is at least probably notable. It's just that the only thing it's probably notable for is...barely mentioned in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Basing much of the article on reliable secondary source is one of the key requirements of Wikipedia articles. The removal of blog based contents shouldn't have even become a controversy. The repeated declines at Draft:Camp_Lambec is quite troubling. Declined four times for much of the same reason I've removed contents from many of the articles that are the focus of the complaints in this discussion. Graywalls (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Camp Lambec is not a scouting related article. It's inclusion here has nothing to do with this discussion. --evrik (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As info to clarify a possible mis-impression from above, there are three organizations (with related articles) referred to in this discussion which are not a part of BSA and who many would consider to be competitors of BSA. And a fourth which discussing scouting world wide. The biography article where Graywalls placed an Undisclosed Unpaid Editing tag followed by a COI tag and the one which is referred to above as being an open potential COI is an article on a person who has been dead for over 20 years. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please see the wording of UPE template. (I added the emphasis) "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". It says may, not was. Private evidence establishes probable cause for UPE. Note that I've publicly sought permission to release these from btphelps and I haven't heard back. Their permission is the only way Wikipedia policy allows the exhibition of these evidence in discussion. Talking of Camp Lambec draft, I mentioned it, because it's a good example of a big gap in the interpretation of acceptable use of primary and connected sources which appears to be part of the contention in this discussion. Graywalls (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Nationals lost to the Pirates, but it was fun seeing the game. The two things we all agree on: 1) many scouting related articles are poorly written; and 2) many scouting related articles need better citations. Can we find a way to resolve this discussion? The Scouting WikiProject could use another twenty editors to take on some of the fixer upper tasks. If Graywalls would agree to stop escalating their actions, and attacking the other editors, I for one would be happy to turn my attention to addressing some of their concerns - when I come back later in the month. Can we resolve this amicably? --evrik (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • These concerns go back years and years, and it's time, maybe, that they were escalated--but I don't see how Graywalls is "escalating their actions" or attacking other editors. Please don't ask Graywalls to stop beating their wife: it's poor manners. You want to address concerns? Don't fight edits by editors of good faith who do NOT have a conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO in the past you've also shown some "axe-to-grind" on these. I'm beginning to think that some of this is something that both feel this is the right thing to do. I'd agree on some common article improvement work, but I think some of comes from misinterpreting the realities that I discussed above of providing encyclopedic coverage as being promotional. Perhaps a dialog somewhere to discuss these aspects would be a good way to come to a common understanding/objective. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Evrik I'm glad to hear you had fun at the game. Were you the IP that started this discussion? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you provide diffs of Graywalls attacking other editors? None have been provided so far, and any unsubstantiated aspersions should be struck. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see anything of the sort; this was a report on what they are doing at these articles. IMO the only thing that needs to be struck is your aspersion that there were aspersions.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The original post in this thread says "personal attacks against btphelps". That allegation has been made several times both here and elsewhere and it needs to be either substantiated or withdrawn. Axad12 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd agree that "personal attacks" is the wrong word to use. The rest of the allegation and presentation above (or possibly all intended as examples of the general complaint) is the diffs themselves. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The diffs provided show no evidence of personal attacks, so the allegation still needs to be either substantiated or withdrawn. Also, evric has since doubled down (above) by saying 'attacking the other editors' (plural), so who are those editors supposed to be and where is the evidence that they have been subjected to personal attacks? Axad12 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I never said personal attacks what I said was that these are unsubstantiated aspersions, which they are. Either diffs of Graywalls attacking other editors should be presented or the allegation should be struck.
      As for the diffs presented in the original report I went over them in my first reply to this thread. They show an editor doing normal editing, nothing has been presented to show that Graywalls has done anything against policy. In fact as I showed in my first reply one of the allegations is just false.
      So again either provide diffs showing that Graywalls has attacked other editors, or strike your false statement that IMO the only thing that needs to be struck is your aspersion that there were aspersions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How about this, if you can reply with one diff that shows Graywalls attacking other editors I will apologise and strike my comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      North8000, the idea that Graywalls has attacked multiple editors seems not to derive ultimately from evrik but instead from a comment that you yourself made here [113], i.e. Graywalls has been on an "axe to grind" type quest and related rough treatment of editors.
      You’ve also described [114] Graywall's behaviour as Painful for several people, which is presumably part of the same allegation.
      Clearly these comments cannot relate to simple allegations of edit warring. Can you provide evidence to back up the claim of ‘rough treatment of editors’ or will you withdraw it? Axad12 (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cosigning JoelleJay and Graywall's sentiments about these articles; they're full of dubious use of primary sources and the assorted walled-garden cruft, and the editors stonewalling any cleanup certainly haven't improved them in the years on this site. Maybe Graywalls could have discussed changes first, but following WP:BRD is not a crime, and this report doesn't demonstrate actual wrongdoing (taking the issue to the COI board when you get stonewalled on a talk page? Also not a crime, and given that these pages are apparently being kept at their terrible level of quality by vested local consensus, is arguably the best option available.) Know what's worse than bold editing? Reverting tags without saying anything. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Evrik: Please answer if you were the one who started this discussion as Counterfeit Purses also asked. Graywalls (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism slipped through[edit]

    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]

    This is spam. All the edits you reported come from the IP range Special:Contributions/2001:9E8:6CC3:8F00::/42. The changes don't continue after Feb. 24th, so the problem is stale for now. If this kind of thing resumes, let an admin know because a rangeblock should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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 [115] 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 [116]) 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]
    @Amortias: Not only that, but he's also personally attacking me (see this) and instead, falsely accusing me of personal attacks. He has yet to provide any diffs where I've attacked him, apart from nominating his BLPs for deletion, which he perceives as a personal attack. He seeks friendship with me to turn a blind eye to the violations he's committing on BLPs. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Starting to think this entry might merit a WP:BOOMERANG warning toward Faizan. The Kip 21:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User on a deletion spree[edit]

    Warned at [117]. Did it again at [118]. Did it again at [119]. Their purpose seems to be to WP:CENSOR articles which don't conform to their religious opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would consider myself a subject matter expert suggests that they might find it helpful to read WP:EXPERT. Narky Blert (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: They seem to be highly educated in Rabbinic Judaism. They don't seem to admit that those who aren't Orthodox Jews (such as mainstream Bible scholars) could have valid knowledge about the Hebrew Bible in special and Judaism in general. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert this user has been on my tail ever since I've been contributing. He keeps reverting my earnest and quality contributions. Most recently, he reverted my edit about messiah in Judaism. The article described it as originally a fringe idea which is not true. Please take a moment to see that edit. I am here to add value and add gaps to articles when I see incorrect facts, so when I saw that I updated it with sourcing in the Talmud where messiah is originally discussed. Editing is best done like a hockey game, not a tennis match. Wiping my additions to the articles from the internet is depriving readers of information they want, feels pretty toxic, and really takes a lot of the fun out of things and questions if I want to continue contributing. I've gotten thanks recently for my edits from other user such as on the [[Purim]] article and want to continue adding value without dealing with this drain. If the other user wants to contribute to articles he can without throwing my hard work in the can. Editing isn't a 1 or a 0, life isn't black or white. If my contributions are not perfect they can refine it without tossing it in the trash. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about your deletions. You're the one tossing edits into the trash. And, above all, those weren't my own edits, but the edits of other editors. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, the quote I deleted about Cyrus was not correct which the user disputes in his revert notes. The article lead says that Jews believe the Messiah can be someone who isn't Jewish which is not a Jewish belief at all, all hinged on a misquote from Masachet Megilla 12A in the Talmud.
    I realize it's a lot of details but looking at it in detail will help you see my edit was correct. Here is the full quote from Masechet Megilla 12A: "What is the meaning of that which is written: “Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held” (Isaiah 45:1), which seemingly is referring to Cyrus as God’s anointed? Now was Cyrus God’s anointed one, i.e., the Messiah, that the verse should refer to him in this manner? Rather, the verse should be understood as God speaking to the Messiah with regard to Cyrus: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Messiah: I am complaining to you about Cyrus, who is not acting in accordance with what he is intended to do. I had said: “He shall build My House and gather My exiles” (see Isaiah 45:13), but he did not carry this out. Rather, he said: “Whoever is among you of all His people…let him go up to Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:3). He gave permission to return to Israel, but he did no more than that."
    From the quote in the Talmud we see this quote does not suggest he was the Messiah but just the opposite. I could go on and on with other things he reverted. Not sure why I am getting so much friction on every edit but it makes me question if I want to continue contributing under these conditions. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your POV is explained here. Our article does not quote the Talmud, it quotes the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906) and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky (1987). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My POV is explained here. You seem to think that the Talmud is the only game in town. You seem to utterly ignore (or deny) that there is valid Bible scholarship outside of the Talmud. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other user is misguided, just because something is in a book doesn't make it true. Academics sources are valid but not everything in a book is true. The author in the book quoted who wrote that must be misguided in his interpretation of Masechet Megilla that we just quoted.
    A look at the actual source in Masachet Megilla shows it can't be quoted to mean what it is described in the Wikipedia article currently. Not only this, but the codified conditions of messiah in halacha Cyrus did not come remotely close to fulfilling and that sentence was just plain wrong.
    I'd like to see the actual source used in that book for a better understanding of that idea, and if the author there is talking about Mosiach Ben David or Mosiach Ben Yosef as well as that means two different things.
    I don't know why the user is arguing with me about what Jews believe about messiah and well-sourced statements in the Oral Torah. This isn't an article on a historical archeological sight, it's an article about Jewish religious beliefs. I brought the source from Talmud to show messiah is an integral part of the tradition and was never fringe. I find this whole exchange really odd, uncomfortable and quite a drain actually.
    There is no edit warring going on and I've added a lot of value thus far if you take a look at my actual edits which has been thanked already, so I don't know why I'm getting such harsh heat from the same 4-5 people. Editing is a hockey game with friends, when one works with the other to make it better. Sadly, some want it to be a tennis match and view edits as a 1 or 0 on some binary but the world isn't black or white and I'd appreciate a more friendly approach from some of the editors. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The other user is misguided, just because something is in a book doesn't make it true. Academics sources are valid but not everything in a book is true. The author in the book quoted who wrote that must be misguided in his interpretation of Masechet Megilla that we just quoted.

    This is a parody of an argument. This paragraph verbatim doubles perfectly well as a joke one would make, which they would then follow with the bare punchline of saying "citation needed!" out loud in a smirking tone. Unbelievable. Remsense诉 00:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you are making me out to be so sinister here, it's honestly really disappointing, there is no "smirking tone" on my end as you describe I can assure you of that. I don't see what the joke is to you, but you've made your opinion known. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    just because something is in a book doesn't make it true—in itself a valid point, but it indiscriminately applies to each and every book (except your own, of course). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why the user is trying to make it sound like I haven't been sticking to the sources or that I am somehow ant-academic. Every time I attempted to talk with them on talk pages they side-stepped discussion by just calling me an anti-academic in one form or another which is just not true. See Abrahamic Religions talk page for example. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sticking to the sources—you have repeatedly deleted information based upon WP:IS, often pretending that you know Judaism much better than full professors (or so it seems from the fact that you have been deleting their views from Wikipedia). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear: I'm not trying to connote a sinister tone. Over the period where I've been aware of these issues, it's increasingly seemed to be a competence issue, rather than a bad faith concern, unfortunately. Remsense诉 02:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You think that only the Talmud and Halacha matter; the Wikipedia Community begs to disagree: mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP matters, and it is not your privilege to WP:CENSOR it from Wikipedia.
    And the Talmud is supposed to retract a claim from a much older Jewish writing? Short of changing the text of the Bible, I don't know how this is supposed to work. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And again at [120]. This has to stop! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Homo unius libri O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    actually, in this case, it’s more like inter alma enim silent legas. 2600:1011:B13F:5382:6420:ADFE:2A66:F322 (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to explain? This is not mob violence against Nycarchitecture212. The problem is that they conflate Wikipedia with The Talmud Wiki. Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Somehow they seem unable to get this point.
    Bart Ehrman wrote about A Historical Assault on Faith. Do you think that such historical assault on Orthodox Judaism legitimizes Orthodox Jews to break the WP:RULES of Wikipedia with impunity? According to WP:FREE and WP:NOTFREESPEECH, Wikipedia is not a forum for "free speech", it is an encyclopedia based upon WP:RS. Wikipedia does not violate their legal right to free speech, which they may exercise elsewhere (YouTube, their own blogs, Conservapedia, etc.). tgeorgescu (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: INDEF Sanctions for Nycarchitecture212[edit]

    This seems simple to me: Nycarchitecture212 does not accept the reliability of sources according to any coherent criterion. The primary person who deals with the effects of this is User:tgeorgescu, who I more or less agree with in that this has to stop. It's a waste of everyone's time. Remsense诉 00:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As someone who lives in the woods upstate, beyond even Westchester County, I beg for the forgiveness of the fine confederation of editors slowly but surely producing a 1∶1 model of NYC in wikitext form. Since everyone seems agree that Nycarchitecture212 is fully capable of editing constructively with other subjects, I want to make explicit that I've changed my own !vote to a topic ban from Judaism, broadly construed. Remsense诉 02:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at the quote in Masechet Megilla, there are also other works that further explain it. Cyrus was never thought of as messiah and while an academic can argue that in a book it doesn't belong prominently in the header of an article about Jewish beliefs. I am here to add value not get heat from the same 4-5 people. Not sure why you can't be more friendly and helpful, assuming good faith and explaining why you believe I am incorrect, instead of describing my edits thus far as a waste of time which is not true. I don't edit about things I don't know, and think my perspective and contributions adds value to these articles and have been thanked for it already. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Agree with Objective3000: Nycarchitecture212 believes that only one book is true about the Hebrew Bible, and all WP:IS about Jewish beliefs should be removed from Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, was going to suggest something softer such as a commitment not to blank text or to cite the Talmund, but looking into it this has been ongoing since July 2023, and such actions continue despite many subsequent warnings, and one partial block. No action was taken after a recent ANI, so it should happen now. I would also suggest a preventative block be lifted only with some agreement on a topic ban as suggested at the end of that ANI thread. CMD (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose across-the-board indef, support topic ban on Jewish topics. Nycarchitecture212 also edits New York City architecture articles; I'm unaware of any controversy with these. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. We don't have a policy against users holding private religious beliefs, whether about the Hebrew Bible or something else, and some of the comments in this thread have read as if over-dependent on emphasizing/asserting such beliefs as if personal belief is necessarily inculpatory and as if extrapolating from them beyond what we strictly know about Nycarchitecture212. Also, it's of course true that our articles are based on the findings of reliable secondary sources; however, strictly speaking WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY apply to what we put in articles, not to our reasons for doing so or to what we say on other pages. It isn't wrong on its face to object to the inclusion of material by arguing that the cited source is misinterpreting the primary source. If memory serves, Grand Central Terminal for a long time had a problem of secondary sources regurgitating a hoax about the ceiling mural. That said I agree that the reported user's deletions and, crucially, their non-responsiveness to feedback are issues. Additionally, in humanities topics like religious studies and textual interpretation (including biblical interpretation) I think our community of editors are too often tempted to think we know significantly better than the published scholarship, and this results in excessive "correction" of scholars and the exclusion of material that is validly due. Since deletion is evidently the problem, I would support a more tailored sanction that places restrictions on deletions for Nycarchitecture212. Perhaps a sanction against deleting material from articles about Jewish topics, or material that has citations. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "strictly speaking WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY apply to what we put in articles" is part of the issue as provided in one of the opening diffs. CMD (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct: I do not condemn Nycarchitecture212 for holding private religious beliefs. What they believe and practice outside of Wikipedia is not our concern. I only reported their edits, not their religion. There used to be WP:CIR#Bias-based or something like that. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To CMD, thank you for pointing that out; I got too caught up in the thread and missed that there was an addition in the diffs. I am now more supportive of a topically oriented sanction but remain opposed to an indef.
      To tgeorgescu, I'm certainly glad you don't condemn Nycarchitecture212 for private religious beliefs, and I tried to focus my observations on how the comments about Nycarchitecture212 read rather than on what a user might believe. I'll add that yes, you only reported their edits; it was your !vote that seemed more preoccupied than necessary with justification based on averring the user believes that only one book is true about the Hebrew Bible, when that's not necessarily relevant to the behavioral matter. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At [121] under Examples, there is Bias-based. So, specifying their religious bias does not mean I attacked their religious beliefs. I have a couple of articles where I cannot work because of my bias, but I simply chose not to edit those articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you point to any examples where an editor emphasized Nycarchitecture212's private (or public!) beliefs, rather than directly commenting on their contributions and stated views about site policy? This has not happened once, as far as I can tell. Their pattern of content contributions is the only thing I find unacceptable—I genuinely do not care if an editor punctuates every sentence by glorifying God, in fact I would find that to be quite lovely. Remsense诉 17:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The first visible !vote in this subthread led with the claim Nycarchitecture212 believes that only one book is true about the Hebrew Bible. Further up in the thread are statements like a valid point, but it indiscriminately applies to each and every book (except your own, of course) and You seem to think that the Talmud is the only game in town. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was inexact earlier—this is frankly a fair analysis of their editorial behavior, and one that is only concerned with the content of their edits. What other conclusion is one supposed to draw from their contribution history? Remsense诉 01:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban, not indef. Hydrangeans' argument is correct. Zerotalk 08:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indefinite block but support topic ban on Judaism, broadly construed The Talmud is a roughly 1500 year old source that is abstruse, prone to exaggeration and highly figurative. Orthodox Jewish scholars build careers on interpreting and debating its arcane teachings. No way under the sun should its translated passages be cited as a reliable source. Instead, citations to modern scholars of all denominations of Judaism, plus secular scholars, including especially scholars of comparative religion, should always be preferred when editing this encyclopedia, which is not "TraditionalJudaismPedia" but something very different, with an explicit preference for citing the work of modern mainstream scholarship. The neutral point of view is a core content policy that is mandatory and non-negotiable. If the editor's work on New York architecture does not consist of tendentious axe-grinding, then they should be encouraged to edit in that topic area, and other areas unrelated to Judaism where they are capable of contributing neutrally. Cullen328 (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Cullen's eloquent recommendation of a topic ban from Judaism above (it should be indefinite, which I suppose was also Cullen's intention). Perhaps I should mention my own previous involvement with Nycarchitecture: I page-blocked them from Yosef Mizrachi in October 2023 for "long-term edit warring, violations of neutral point of view, filibustering, and generally wasting other editors' time", per this ANI discussion. It might also be worth mentioning that they were formally warned as an arbitration enforcement action just a few days ago to "avoid mischaracterizing the statements of other editors or otherwise casting aspersions". That was about aspersions against Tgeorgescu at WP:AE. Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    • Topic ban on Judaism, broadly construed. I don't really agree with Tgeorgescu's interpretation here of NycArchitecture as a Talmud-first type, but if anything the actual state may be worse. I ran across this user coincidentally, with an edit they made after being reported to ANI (diff), where they flat removed a part of Jewish history that is ugly by modern standards with no edit summary. If there hadn't been a page watcher (me) they may well have gotten away with it. But this isn't a case of editing according to the Talmud; the Talmud & co. are actually quite ambivalent on the Hasmoneans and has no problem trashing them for stuff about them they didn't like. And the Hasmoneans themselves were proud of this particular bit, recording it in their court history. So this is just a pure modern ethics touch-up in defiance of all sources, both historical and religious. SnowFire (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on Judaism, broadly construed per A.B., Hydrangeans, Zero, Cullen, Bishonen and SnowFire. This would be the community's way of letting NYArc know that we are not opposed to their contributions here, so long as they have absolutely nothing to do with Judaism — an area in which they have proven themselves, over and over again, to be utterly incapable of editing in a neutral and collaborative manner. As others have mentioned above, many other websites exist (including but not limited to Hamichlol, if they know Hebrew) which cater to their specific worldview, and undoubtedly would welcome their input there. Havradim leaf a message 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Judaism, broadly construed per everyone above. Wikipedia has no need for people who disrupt the already contentious religious subject areas and refuse to amend their behavior, but blocking someone indefinitely for a localize issue is almost certainly inappropriate. I particularly concur with SnowFire's appraisal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from all religious articles I see no need at this time for a full block. NYC architecture can keep one busy for quite a while. But it's difficult to see how an editor with such strong beliefs in one area of religion can be useful on anything religious. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Brotherly account[edit]

    Pprr0210 has only one edit, but has the same behavior. See [122]. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Could be a meatpuppet, not a sock so far as I can tell. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Exteahans71 impersonating admins, blanking warnings, and edit warring with no explanations/sources[edit]

    I raised this matter last week but it was archived before any action was taken.[123]. A third final warning message has been ineffective and their behaviour continues.[124] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)<diff>[reply]

    Barry Wom You need to sign reports. Also you are required to make a notification on the talk page of all involved parties. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were notified on the initial report[125] but it was ignored. I've added a further notice. Barry Wom (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exteahans71 attempted to remove this report via this edit. They've subsequently apologised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamla (talk • contribs) 12:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They've also removed all warnings from their talk page without meaningful response [126].
    The article is littered with unsourced material from this user, but to focus on just one example, they inserted an unsourced studio into the infobox [127] which was reverted [128] but swiftly reinserted [129]. A source was subsequently added [130], which turned out to be a fake fan-made TV spot [131]. It was again reinserted, this time without the reference [132] and reverted [133] and a few reversals ensued [134] [135] [136] [137]. It was next reinserted with different reference to an unreliable user-generated source [138] and reverted again [139], reinserted with the same source [140], reverted [141], resinserted with no source [142] and a bunch of reversals ensued [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148].
    At this point I raised this ANI case and reverted once again [149]. The behaviour has continued since [150] [151] [152] [153][154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] Barry Wom (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He thinks the Art of Ruby Gillman is a source for the refs which I don't believe the artbooks can have good ref material. 64.56.14.75 (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that this editor is making poorly sourced changes, deleting content without edit messages, and otherwise engaging in edit warring that may warrant sanctions. See their edit history on Turning Red. This feels like it's gone past the point of WP:AGF given that competence is required and multiple warnings/opportunities to change behaviour have been offered. lizthegrey (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    cc @Nyxaros and @Masem who dealt with what looked at the time like a new user repeatedly removing content based on their personal opinions, but now is looking like a pattern of disruptive editing. lizthegrey (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exteahans71 tried to blocked me for 6 months! Accusing me for disruptive behavior! [160] He thinks he's one of the admins of the Wikipedia. 64.56.14.75 (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I’m sorry, I didn’t realized I am not an admins of the Wikipedia. Exteahans71 (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Exteahans71: You're sorry for what exactly? – 2804:F14:80EC:AB01:D0C2:97E3:6645:A903 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked Exteahans71 for one week for edit-warring. I suspect that when the block expires, assuming they resume editing, they will eventually be indefinitely blocked. I've also blocked 64.56.14.75 for six months for block evasion (nothing to do with Exteahans71).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dialmayo[edit]

    Unfunny April Fools joke. Spicy (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Dialmayo has been completely uncivil and has gone against everything the founding Wikifathers intended for this site. Dialmayo has wreaked havoc on this site that can only be corrected by an immediate indef block.

    Let's take a look at this diff. Dialmayo has clearly stated that spending precious time and effort on the Wikipedia namespace is less important than "building an encyclopedia"? What the hell does that even mean?? We all came here to watch editor drama in this here noticeboard! this diff shows she's lost sight of Wikipedia's goals entirely! Wikipedia is supposed to be a place of utmost seriousness. She even reported herself to ANI!

    Secondly, let's take a look at Dialmayo's violent personal attacks. First, look at this violent edit. Dialmayo brutally attacks the poor, innocent IP. Then, after getting the IP blocked, she follows up with this, clearly a gravedance! This editor is wildly disrespectful. Just look at her userpage, humiliating Chris Troutman! Dialmayo?? More like Devilmayo!!!!! Look at all the mistakes she's made! Clearly, she's proud of these, and would do it again!

    I hope you get this wasteful, inconsiderate, useless Dialmayo off of Wikipedia immediately! Sincerely, Dialmayo 09:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [April Fools!][reply]

    "Cliff Cash" vandal keeps trying to log in as me[edit]

    Hello. I was encouraged to post a complaint here by 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. There has been a persistent attempt by a sockpuppet creator to fake my identity and log in as me. His original account was called User:Liamb2011 but he has created many sockuppets that have been shut down already for repeated incidents of bad editing. This person has two incidents on the administrators' noticeboard already for this behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Persistent_block_evasion_at_Cliff_Cash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Persistent_block_evasion%2C_disruption_by_Cliff_Cash_vandal

    For several months now, his behavior has included trying to log in as me, both by creating sockpuppet accounts with names that are close to mine, such as "Mehendri Solon 2nd Account" and "Mehendri Parsons", and by repeatedly attempting to log in under my username. He has never succeeded, and I don't really think that he will, but it has been annoying. I asked him to stop, but it has kept going. I have tried to just ignore it. I had hoped that he would lose interest and go away, but it's been continuing for at least a couple of months. This morning, he attempted to reset my password. I would really like him to stop. Mehendri Solon (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is probably something a Checkuser should opine on and handle discreetly, since the quickest solution would be the privacy-implicating IP block. Password reset emails will not get sent to someone behind a blocked IP, and they can also be set to disallow account creation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant block(s) appear to be in place to deal with the account creation and editing, though I'm open to hearing about any recent accounts not already visited by a checkuser. I'm pretty sure there's not much we can do about people trying to log in. I expect someone from the security team could do something about it if it's extreme, I probably wouldn't say it rises to that level, but someone at WP:T&S may be able to advise further. I would advise: make sure the account is secure, turn off the relevant notification, and spam-bin unexpected password reset emails. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick reply. I agree that it probably is not an extreme issue, just an annoyance, at least for now. The person in question has left enough clues to his real identity that I've been able to track him down on social media, and he appears to be a high-school student with too much time on his hands. I do hope that the blocks on him can remain in place indefinitely, since he shows no signs of stopping. Mehendri Solon (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:مشرا and WP:competence is required[edit]

    Many of the pages this user (who specializes in Pakistani history) has created have been deleted or redirected as duplicate topics, and the ones that have not all have outstanding maintenance tags. The most serious issue with their writing is false verification; they may write a paragraph and add two citations at the end, neither of which actually state anything claimed in the paragraph. Two of their creations, Baral Agreement, and Sikh Soudhan Wars, were deleted for having supposed article topics tangential to real life events but never actually discussed in any sources. Communication with them is difficult, as they appear to have a poor grasp of English.

    It's ok for a new user to make mistakes, or for someone for whom English is not their first language to contribute, but after nearly a year on this project this person doesn't appear to have learned any lessons. False verification issues can last for many years before being spotted, and this user is still adding problematic material to existing articles. As such, I propose an indefinite block from mainspace in addition to a review of all their edits. Hopefully, they will improve their writing and successfully appeal their block, but in the meantime the harm they are causing to the encyclopedia is too great to ignore. Cheers, Mach61 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You tell me what I should do? I am ready to follow your words, God willing مشرا (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @مشرا Thank you for being receptive. I would recommend that you submit any new pages you create as drafts through the Articles for creation process. That way, an experienced editor will review what you have written and decide if it is suitable for the encyclopedia or not. I would also ask that you discuss any major changes (such as your edits on Sudhan) on the talk page of the article or a relevant WikiProject (in this case Wt:WikiProject Pakistan).

    Again, the primary issue with your contributions have been that they do not always match the sources. Consider using the |quote= parameter of citation templates, so that statements in the article can be connected to specific statements in the source. Cheers, Mach61 02:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I will follow your suggestion from today. To give your valuable time. And thank you so much for the guide مشرا (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Potentially disruptive behavior from user pabloescomar[edit]

    pabloescomar

    A recently created user has been re-inserting disputed content and not engaging in talk page discussions regarding the material.

    The material in question was removed under WP:EXCEPTIONAL with directions to look at the Talk Page.

    This was restored by pabloescomar on March 4, with no edit summary. I removed on March 18, with the same edit summary pointing towards WP:EXCEPTIONAL and directing to the talk page discussion, which was restored again. I removed once more, again directing towards the talk page as well as pointing towards WP:ONUS that not all information needing to be included.

    On March 24, the user restored the information without discussing on the talk page or providing an edit summary. I removed again but left a post on their talk page trying to WP:AGF and show them relevant policies and guidelines more in depth, since I realized that as a new user they may not understand or know about several of them. I also noted Ignoring the consensus building process while inserting or re-inserting disputed material can be seen as disruptive and can lead to sanctions; please see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS for further info on what actions can be seen as disruptive. with the hopes that the user would refrain from restoring disputed material without discussion. It didn't seem to have any effect, and the material was restored with a blank edit summary on March 31.

    Since the material in question relates to accusations that a rapper who died a few years ago was a serial killer according to a YouTube 'documentary', I figured it needed better sources that covered it in depth. However, I understand this may at least in part be considered a content dispute but wanted to address it on ANI due to the unwillingness of the individual to participate in discussions or acknowledge policies and guidelines. Rather than revert it again I wanted to address the behavior here, since I don't want to engage in a long term edit war and am unsure if I am or not but would rather seek outside guidance. Thank you.

    Awshort (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the section has been removed again. If King Von were alive, I would argue that we'd need top-tier sources to support this claim. But that shouldn't mean that we'll accept just about anything after he died. It probably couldn't hurt to take the sources to WP:RSN for a consensus on their reliability.
    As for User:Pabloescomar, I would support an article topic ban to nudge the editor towards Talk:King Von. Woodroar (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Username seems close to Pablo Escobar, so possible username violation alongside this. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User Zolgensma NOTHERE[edit]

    The page Family Star was deleted at AfD resulting in a redirect. Since that time, users have attempted to recreate the page which has been reverted. The conduct here is not about the redirect but the conduct of user:Zolgensma. In order to avoid detection, User:Zolgensma created The Family Star as an alternative name. That page was initially prodded but then moved to draftspace after discovering the topic was the same as the one from the deletion discussion. User initially failed to discuss until a discussion was created on their behalf at Talk:Family Star where the user fails to engage in CIVILITY or discussion about notability. They then attempted to remove the redirect (which was reverted) and subsequently created another alternative title (Family Star (film)) which was also deleted. Based on the conduct, I would request a block since they do not seem to want to follow the process of gaining consensus. You can also see their talk page for the most recent back and forth with other editors and this discussion on their talk page which they previously removed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In the link to the talk page discussion the account specifically said “we”. That demands a clarification, if this is a multiuser account or a corporate account or such it needs to be blocked for non-compliance with account rules. 2600:1011:B13F:5382:6420:ADFE:2A66:F322 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am positive the person is associated with one of the LTA sock farms part of UPE in film-related pages but didn't take the time to dig. The whack a mole has got me worn out for the time being. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've protected the redirect page for now while this gets sorted, depending on the outcome, i may drop protection or adjust protection accordingly. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I am guessing they will be back on in a few hours and hopefully participate in the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HI all, the first time when I created article, I did not do anything to avoid detection, I was not aware a draft article was present at that time. My only concern is the article on the upcoming film Family Star doesn't need these many drafts. It is just a notable film article, It doesn't need this much attention. We here means the other editors to whom I am asking the question including me. Please understand the context We here means it is the responsibility of anyone.Zolgensma (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So can anyone tell me whether this article will ever be published by April 5 the release date of the film? So this film doesn't exist according to CNMall41 can anyone tell me what is CNMall41's agenda. I did not do anything abusive or uncivil here, and even If I am blocked the article will be created anyways by some other editor, because the release date is April 5. I am free to do anything with my talk page. I am no longer interested in this article. Kindly dont abuse me after this.Zolgensma (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Family Star has just been recreated, unsourced, at The Family Star (2024 film), by newish account User:SaiyaanTwitter. @SaiyaanTwitter: care to comment? Wikishovel (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I already mentioned that it is a popular upcoming film releasing on April 5, so somebody somewhere will attempt creating it, and this unnecessary complication is deliberately created by CNMall41. Again this editor will move the above article into draft space, and continues this chain reaction. There has to be an end to this non sense started by CNMall41. Only admin can get CNMall41 blocked for heavy disruptive editing. Look at the monstrous problem CNMall41 has created for no reason. Too many draft creations without purpose. I can fix this article if allowed. If you check CNMall41's behavior throughout this issue, he/she just falsely accuses fellow editor and vanishes without participating in discussions and never replies constructively. Very strangely the editor is falsely accusing me throughout. Hope somebody stops CNMall41 from touching the topic Family Star for few days, So that the issue can be fixed by me.Zolgensma (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No reply from User:SaiyaanTwitter, so I've moved the unsourced stub article to draft where it belongs. Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is pretty obvious here. Wikishovel (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply put, you can't just claim this is a popular upcoming film. You must provide reliable, independent sources which demonstrate the notability of the film. In other words, we need articles specifically about this film (not just mentioning it exists) to demonstrate it's something that should have an article.
    Second, stop accusing CNMall of having an agenda and insisting you get to edit how you wish. What CNMall has done is not vandalism. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all the film spam coming from UPE companies, the attempted recreation under alternative titles (common tactic of UPE), and a new account creating the page (the "we") user is likely talking about, I filed this. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Film spam", "UPE companies" the "we" etc I am first time hearing this wiki jargon. All the drafts are already provided with reliable, independent sources which already demonstrated the notability of the film. In other words, the article and sources talk specifically about this film (not just mentioning it exists). The final draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Family_Star) updated by me clearly demonstrates it's something that should have an article. Well it is an upcoming popular film no doubt in it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nWuRw770TI. It is a trivial matter to be discussed in admin noticeboards, doesn't need this much attention and discussion in the first place. CNMall41 you kindly continue with your agenda of creating another 100 drafts, and it is going to be a never ending chain reaction. There is no article in the main space yet you keep on dragging it, no worries.Zolgensma (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not "wiki jargon". The fact you don't understand the terms, combined with this rambling reply, makes me think this is a WP:CIR issue (and that is wiki jargon).
    Your draft does 'not demonstrate it's something we should have an article on. It's overly trivial, and cites unreliable sources (WP:TOI), not independent reviews that would show notability. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I Disagree, it is well sourced article. Not trivial, and clearly demonstrates notability. Quoting unusual terms such as "Film spam" and "we" is wiki jargon only.Zolgensma (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declined Draft:The Family Star per lack of sources to denote notability. WP:TOI is considered generally reliable to unreliable throughout Wikipedia, but when it comes to film related articles, we take it as unreliable (per WP:ICTFSOURCES). And the majority of sources are TOI and I couldn't find any Independent sources either, other than the primary ones. Hence declined. Since the movie is coming out tomorrow and the creator (as well as other duplicate entires) seem desperate to have a Wikipedia article before that, should go through the decline comments and try to actually improve the article to prove it's mainspace worthy. Rather than spamming draftspace, that would actually do something. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You decline, I dont want to participate in this non sense anymore. I have improved the article, and you say spamming it, what non sense is this. The film is releasing tomorrow.Zolgensma (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ACE Money Transfer[edit]

    I've reviewed at AfC a draft, User:MTanveer512/sandbox, which IMO has red flags all over it, but I don't know where to take it so I brought it here. It's about a business called ACE Money Transfer. This has been created at ACE Money Transfer, Draft:ACE Money Transfer, Aftab Currency Exchange Ltd and possibly other titles, to the point where some of those are protected (probably why this is in a sandbox?). A number of users associated with this have been blocked, eg. Acesocialmedia and Ace.shahzad.ashraf, but all the ones I could find go back many years and are long since stale, hence no point (?) in taking them to SPI.

    The user who created this draft is a brand new SPA (so far at least), who claims not to have edited before, but creating such a well-formed draft as one's first edit seems remarkable. They also claim to have no association with the business in question, although I've found off-WP evidence (inconclusive, but still) which suggests otherwise. AGF notwithstanding, I don't really buy any of this. Whether we're looking at socking or UPE or both, I can't be sure, but I'm pretty convinced it's something. Could an admin please take a look? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)--[reply]

    After a quick look, I'm inclined to agree with the OP. This looks highly suspicious. I don't have check user rights, but I'd suggest that as the next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the accounts are very old CU wouldn't be able to do much beyond behavioural analysis. That data is only retained for, at most, a few months. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 19:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check for copyright violations, that usually helps tell whether or not it’s an UPE group as they have a tendency to copy and paste the corporate line into the article with little or no revisions. I’ve been able to pounce on a a]handful of COI/UPE editors in this way and block them before they could dig in. Otherwise, it may be worth discretely notifying spi checkusers who are familiar with the case to see what they think about the account(s) and/or article(s) in question. 2600:1011:B13F:5382:6420:ADFE:2A66:F322 (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll[edit]

    I have restored this from the archive: there is a concrete proposal on the table on which many people have !voted; it requires administrative attention. --JBL (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @S Marshall: closed a controversial RFC today at Talk:Tim Hunt, see Talk:Tim Hunt#RfC: 2015 remarks. Whilst acknowledging there appeared to be a consensus, he reminded editors that consensus can't over-rule founding principles, the second pillar, and core content policy and quoting the amplification on his talk page these cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong. He later emphasised this on his own talk page [161] in response to a query [162].

    Judging by that query, it appears that the key point in the closure was being ignored; namely WP:PROPORTION. Shortly thereafter, and before any reply, an edit was made to Tim Hunt which appeared to ignore the closure[163]. Noting the history of edit warring at the article, I chose to add a {{npov}} tag and start a talk page discussion. I felt that any revert of a bold edit would result in an edit war and had no intention to revert war.

    My tag was removed by JayBeeEll [164] with the edit summary "Don't be silly", I restored the tag and it was once again removed by JayBeeEll [165] with the edit summary "Yes sure let's see how this turns out", which appears to be an intention to revert war. The comment in the talk page [166] in response to my concerns and the unnecessary 3RR warning on my talk page appears to confirm [167] that.

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

    The behavior displayed by WCM is very similar to the behavior that led to this only one month ago; it is disappointing that he has not been able to accommodate himself to the fact that his view is a minority, both relative to WP editors and to the views represented in reliable sources. At least he stopped after a single round of edit-warring about the ridiculous tagging. As with Thomas B, my hope is that this can be settled by a change of behavior, without the need for any sanctions. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no wish to comment on this ridiculous tag edit war, and I'd prefer to limit my involvement with the page to closing that one RfC, but I do want to say tempers are extremely frayed in this topic area and there's definitely scope for an uninvolved sysop to step in and restore order. Please.—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a ridiculous edit war, were it not for the fact I refused to edit war over this. The fact remains that removing the tags in the way JayBeeEll did is counter to accepted policy. I would acknowledge @S Marshall:'s comment that this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. I have been asking for that for weeks, the reference to the removal of Thomas Basboll, is exactly the point I wish to make. If editors are convinced they're right and there are enough of them make a fuss, they can remove what they see as an obstruction by lobbying loudly here. The edit war that editor attempted to start, and its clear that was his intention, was a repeat of the same tactics used previously. I have made no attempt to filibuster I simply tried to bring external opinion but that's pretty unlikely given the toxic nature of editing at present. WCMemail 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editing situation got much less toxic when you stopped participating for a few days; maybe you should try that again? Certainly it would be good for an uninvolved admin to tell you the same thing everyone else on this thread has said. --JBL (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point to anything I've said that contributes to a toxic atmosphere. As for comments contributing to a toxic atmosphere[168] "Don't be silly [169] "Yes sure let's see how this turns out" whilst edit warring to remove tags that encourage outside input. WCMemail 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies.
    That's an extremely uncharitable reading of the closure, apparently because you just don't like the results. The close was finding that the RfC consensus narrowly found for inclusion, with a warning to follow guiding principles of the Wiki while doing so. That's it. The rest of it is you projecting onto the closure and making vague, hand-wavy assertions that the close is against policy.
    Since you won't be available for a couple days anyway, I suggest you wait and see what proposed edits come from the RfC before making any further comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I at no point said the close was against policy, I actually think given the toxic atmosphere he was entering @S Marshall: made a very good closure of that malformed RFC. The reminder that local consensus can't trump core policy seems to have fallen on deaf ears it seems. WCMemail 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CON has by definition got to be aligned with the WP:PAGs since it embodies "a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". So if @S Marshall's close is "very good", it follows it must have correctly divined consensus, which you now need to accept. If however, you think the close has arrived at a problematic WP:LOCALCON you need to initiate a close review. Shit or get off the pot. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely this. WCM, you can't have it both ways: you can't claim the close "trumps core policy", while acknowledging it was a good close. The close in fact emphasizes that any proposed changes have to adhere to core policy. It seems you're claiming that the finding of inclusion inherently violates policy, so which is it? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point did I say the close trumps policy, that's your strawman. The closer clearly refers to core policies and makes it plain that they can't be overridden by a local consensus. He also singled out that I and others couldn't be ignored because we were making well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy further adding While editors are implementing option 1 and option 2A, they should have regard to core content policy, and specifically WP:PROPORTION. It's clear from this comment [170] there is no intention to implement the full intention of the close The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that WP:PROPORTION isn't terribly relevant. There is WP:TAG team of editors are acting in concert and per @S Marshall:'s comment this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. WCMemail 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh I tried, but if you're intent on digging a hole, I can't stop you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you aren't available for the next couple of days, why the hell are you opening an ANI thread? "Reluctantly bringing it here" yeah right. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WCM's editing regarding the Tim Hunt article has been as tendentious as Basboll's in staunchly refusing to get the point regarding the fact that their viewpoint is a minority and continuing to beat a dead horse and engage in WP:WIKILAWYERING in an attempt to fillibuster discussions regarding the issue, rather than just moving on. I would support a topic or page ban from Tim Hunt if WCM does not desist with his aggressive rejection of the talkpage consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that WCM has continued his disruption regarding the article, I firmly support a topic ban now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't done any editing that would remotely be described as disruptive. [171] Any editing I do is immediately reverted, this was clearly constructive. WCMemail 12:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely astonishing. --JBL (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • support topic ban due the editor's apparent unwillingness to drop the stick and refusal to get the point of the RfC. I commented at the ANI thread where Thomas B was topic banned. Given the RfC I moved on and have not touched the article or the RfC. The level of name-calling on display at that article over an ancient ten-day kerfuffle in the bro-sphere easily matched the most acrimonious mutual accusations of genocide I have witnessed on Wikipedia. EE squared. I had never heard of Tim Hunt. He seems nice? But if the episode in question is included in the article -- and there seems no question that RS has covered it in immense detail - then the article should dispassionately state that Tim Hunt said what he said. This editor's contention that it should not (because the poor man nearly committed suicide over this) utterly lacks a grounding in policy, and no evidence was ever presented of this assertion either. It betrays an emotional investment in this incident that baffles me, frankly. I would hesitate to participate on the talk page due to this editor's past level of vitriol, and the time sink it again likely would become. I am not following this thread. If anyone has questions about what I just said, please ping me. Elinruby (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      [172] I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do. in your on words your motives are to expose another misogynist. I am quite astounded that you'd openly mock someone driven near to suicide. WCMemail 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I check back at this article after taking a break from it and find the RfC has been closed, consensus established and the article fixed accordingly. Great: the journey is over, the plane has landed, and the engines are turned off .... But oddly the whining sound continues as there's one editor who seemingly can't move on. If this continues sanctions may be appropriate. Bon courage (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the other problem editor in this mix, who was page banned from Tim Hunt, has now started beating the dead horse at BLPN.[173] Bon courage (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I reported this straight to the ban-implementing administrator this time, as this is an obvious attempt at WP:GAMING, WP:STICK, WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I will remember to prefer broader topic bans next time. NicolausPrime (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given lack of response I guess this was the wrong venue. I won't be trying to get Thomas B sanctioned for this in particular any further, but should we post some sort of final warning to User talk:Thomas B? NicolausPrime (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ... and today User:Thomas B still continues to post about Tim Hunt on BLPN. This earlier comment "I won't be participating too actively" (bolding mine) indicates that the user is going to continue to disrupt. So we have to upgrade Thomas B's page ban to a topic ban at a minimum. But given this user's stubborn, prolonged refusal to cease disruption, an additional block from the whole Wikipedia for a few months is needed as a deterrent, in my view. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And now the BLPN discussion forum-shopped by Thomas B resulted in yet another editor getting dragged to ANI. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've started a new ANI thread to expand Thomas B's sanctions [174]. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:FORUMSHOPPING and other issues. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Does this topic fall under GenSex? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The overall Tim Hunt article wouldn't but the section on the controversy would fall under a GENSEX topic ban, as they are "broadly construed". (So would this thread, I believe.) Loki (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for Wee Curry Monster. WCM had numerous opportunities to change course. All this has been sinking our time for over a month already. Since the editor is not willing to drop the stick, a sufficiently broad sanction is the only remaining solution. NicolausPrime (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Please somebody make it stop. Bon courage (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per the really excruciating refusal to drop the stick or adjust behavior in any way. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Pretty shameful episode for WP and ANI. WP:CIR, and the lack of such competence is what created this mess. It's very clear that some editors pushed content, got an editor banned from the article, and opined in the RfC without first bothering to read the sources. fiveby(zero) 18:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fiveby: Your latest contribution on the talk-page is a bit cryptic, and invoking CIR here is bizarre, but I'm quite sure that if you were to participate in the constructive content discussions (i.e., the ones that don't involve WCM or Thomas B) the result would be positive. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I try and limit my participation to finding and providing sources for other editors, how is it constructive and why would i participate when the remaining editors, those who survived ANI, are those which have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to read those sources? I'll try and explain my 'cryptic' comment on the talk page. It was just a suggestion to WCM that what he is doing might be futile. You cannot force editors to read sources. An editor familiar with the reading may have reverted that content, but would never have called it "disingenuous" in the edit summary. As far as "can't fix stupid" goes, tho it is couched in terms of the content generated by conflict rather than collaboration, did not my choice to use that particular phrase make my opinion clear enough? fiveby(zero) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a reason that WCM's edits to the article get reverted but your edits a couple weeks ago did not, and it's not about the unwillingness of people to read sources. I mean obviously if you change your mind but decide that what you have to add is a bunch of comments about other editors not reading the sources then I don't think that will go great. But almost everyone who has contributed in the discussions on the talk-page has shown a willingness to listen to others as part of developing a consensus. Anyhow, don't mind me, do what you want! --JBL (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. This is just blatant WP:STICK and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The consensus in the RFC was clear. The consensus on talk about how to implement the RFC is reasonably clear. Their comments after the RFC were full of aspersions and battlefield behavior, ending with Feel free to disabuse me of the presumption that having "won" and righted a great wrong to expose the terribly sexist misognynist that you don't intend to do that. --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. WCM has been popping up at literally anywhere on Wikipedia this is being discussed to re-litigate a view of the RFC that literally nobody else holds. The RFC close even mentions him showing up at the close request I made to pressure whoever was going to close it. Even after the close he's totally failed to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and thus unfortunately we've got to force the issue with a topic ban. Loki (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment[edit]

    [175] My contribution history on Tim Hunt. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.

    Note 2 tags added 13 March 2024. 25 March 2024 - series of edits adding context and information in WP:RS per WP:NPOV.

    That is all of my contributions.

    [176] My contribution history on Talk:Tim Hunt.

    Note: 13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, 17 March 2024 - Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution.

    In the last month, I've made 3 comments in talk, 2 contributions to the article in total. Hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.

    I note editors have simply alleged misconduct, largely unsupported by diffs. Addressing the talk quote taken out of context by Aquillion. This is a response to [177], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misoginy is not mine but for example [178] he's just another misogynist.

    I am mentioned in the close simply because as noted Wee Curry Monster at WP:CR, and others here, have put forth some well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy. I have not as claimed disputed the RFC, feel free to add a diff showing where I did but my exact comment was a very good closure of that malformed RFC. I have commented, because as noted by the closer, I have raised relevant objections to what is proposed. Reference to WP:DROPTHESTICK isn't relevant here but WP:IDONTHEARTHAT certainly is.

    WP:FORUMSHOPPING? I haven't raised the topic in any forums. Check my contribution history. This is the one and only time I've gone to a board, in response to an attempt to bait me into an edit war so the connection to the article is tangential. My comments at Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37#Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks were simply to alert any closer to what they were walking into.

    A number of editors have commented that the text isn't neutral and doesn't reflect what neutral sources say on the topic. This is a violation of our WP:BLP policy. I did in fact seek advice on this from Drmies at User talk:Drmies/Archive 147#Question on BLP. Which appears to confirm my concerns were well founded.

    Fiveby appears to have given up on commenting because he recognises its futile and I agree its futile. So having raised the issue, I think its time for me to simply walk away. I'm taking this off my watch list, mainly for the good of my own mental health and taking a wikibreak. WCMemail 08:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I note that WCM continues to expand the number of fora in which they are conducting their battles, including this astonishingly condescending advice to another user to drop the stick. IMO, there are plenty of !votes in the section above for an administrator to make an assessment of consensus here. --JBL (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)[edit]

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

    I'm not going to go into the other conducts by Pataliputra (which includes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) this time. This report will be solely about their edits related to images, since that's one huge issue in its own right.

    For literally years and years on end Pataliputra has had a complete disregard for how much space there is in articles and the logic/reason behind adding their images, often resorting to shoehorning often irrelevant images which often look more or less the same as the other placed image(s), and generally bring no extra value to the readers other than making them read a mess. I don't want to engage in speculations, but when Pataliputra is randomly placing their uploaded images into other images [179] (which is incredibly strange and not something I've ever seen in Commons), it makes me suspect a reason for their constant shoehorning and addition of often irrelevant/non-helpful images is to simply promote the stuff they have uploaded.

    These are just the diffs I remember from the top of my head, I dare not even to imagine how many diffs I would possess if I saved every one of them I noticed throughout the years as well as the opposition by other users, because this has been ongoing for too long. I've frankly had enough;

    1. [180]
    2. [181]
    3. [182]
    4. [183]
    5. [184]
    6. [185]
    7. [186]
    8. [187]
    9. [188]
    10. [189]
    11. [190]
    12. [191]
    13. [192]
    14. [193]
    15. [194]
    16. [195]
    17. [196]
    18. [197]
    19. [198]
    20. [199]
    21. [200]
    22. [201]
    23. [202]
    24. [203]
    25. [204]

    Recently, a user voiced their concern [205] against the excessively added images by Pataliputra at Badr al-Din Lu'lu'. What did Pataliputra do right after that? Respond to the criticism? No, ignore it and add more images (eg [206]). Did Pataliputra bother to take in the criticism even remotely by the other user and me at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' afterwards? They did not. In fact, they added even more image after that [207]. Other recent examples are these [208] [209] [210] [211]. I also found a thread from 2019 also showing disaffection to their edits related to images [212].

    Their constructive edits should not negate non-constructive ones like these. This really needs to stop. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As already explained [213] the most relevant information is not always in the form of text. I can create an article about Central Asian art with 135 images in it, and receive a barnstar for it [214], or create articles with no images at all. The article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' is in between: there is little textual information about this ruler, but on the contrary a lot of very interesting information in visual form (works of art, manuscripts, which have reached us in astounding quality and quantities). These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler. There are no fixed rules, and it depends on the subject matter, the key point being relevance. In general, the images I am adding are not "random gallery" at all: they are properly commented upon in captions, and usually sourced, and are very valuable in their own right. Of course, we can discuss about the relevance of any given image, that's what Talk pages are for... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are indeed adding images that are not relevant, and often shoehorning it a that, something you were criticized for at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' and which the numerous diffs demonstrate. That is what this whole report is about - when you have been doing this for literal years, that's when the talk page is no longer of use and ANI is the place to go. And Central Asian art is a poor example, it's an article about art.. of course images are more relevant there, and this is ultimately about your bad edits, not good ones - so please address those. I'm glad you got a barnstar, but this is not what's being discussed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler.
    Unless you have citations to back that up, this is WP:OR. Simply put, we don't need this many images on an article, especially an article that has little textual information about this ruler (which might be an argument for deletion or merge). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing entire section of feudalism pages due to lack of understanding[edit]

    We have made it all better. Feudalism is back on the menu. Remsense诉 15:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, only Serial Number 54129 is allowed yellow! 😾 El_C 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Remsense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remsense) is going at a "edit war" by removing an entire section on feudalism due to lack of understanding instead of constructively attempting to make changes to the topic at hand. They are deducting the article to sections that instead state "need clarification" compared to leaving as is or adding to it constructively. Alwaysaspiring30 (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added pagelinks and userlinks to the head of this report and notified User:Remsense of the complaint. There have also been discussions at User talk:Alwaysaspiring30#April 2024 and at Talk:Feudalism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already said all I feel I need to say on either Talk:Feudalism, the user talk page, or (regrettably, sorry) in edit summaries. I've linked several policy pages and explained my precise concerns, and wouldn't otherwise know what to say. If anyone has any questions, let me know. Remsense诉 03:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alwaysaspiring30, this is not the correct forum for this dispute. These are fundamentally editorial concerns; they should be hammered out at Talk:Feudalism, not here. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, it does not really seem like they will be receptive to discussion in any venue, as suggestion to rework and move content to a more appropriate section is taken as judgement that the content isn't important, despite my emphasizing several times that I think it should be included in the article in some form. However, in its present state it is a glaring net negative in a very important article—ultimately I think it'll probably be the least disruptive outcome if someone else irons this out, I'm not sure how to approach or work with this in a way that will be acceptable to them. Remsense诉 03:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You added content another editor objected in some way and reverted, and you repeatedly reverted to your version. I suggest reading the advice at WP:BRD and discussing it on the articles talk page. There are many suggestions at WP: Dispute resolution before coming here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Kingdom of Aksum pags[edit]

    Why are non scholarly sources allowed to be used. The page contains lots of false information and should be reviewed. The platform should not allow for agenda driven pages Habesha212 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    “The Aksumite rulers became sufficiently Hellenized to employ the Greek language, as noted quite early on by the Greek shipping guide called the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (Ch. 2: 2), a document variously dated between the mid- first and third centuries AD with a consensus of modern opinion favouring the first or early second centuries. Somewhat later, Greek became one of the customary languages for Aksumite inscriptions and coins, since it was the lingua franca of the countries with which they traded.
    The Aksumites grew strong enough to expand their military activity into South Arabia by the end of the second or early third century AD, where their control over a considerable area is attested by their Arabian enemies' own inscriptions (Ch. 4: 3 & 4); a direct reversal of the earlier process of South Arabian influence in Ethiopia already mentioned”
    Munro-Hay Aksum an African civilisation.
    so I would like evidence as to Greek preceding Ge’ez and evidence that shows that it does including those that claim that Ezana made it the official language. Habesha212 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably not the appropriate place for this conversation. Suggest consulting WP:RS/N if you feel sources are being treated reliable that should not be (or unreliable that should not be.) Simonm223 (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see you pulled a page ban. Suggest dropping the WP:STICK. Simonm223 (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Habesha212 and Aksum. Habesha212, you cannot continue your content dispute here because you have been page blocked from Kingdom of Aksum. Seems like a wider block is needed. DeCausa (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is a wider block needed, I can appeal and I would like my points addressed 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:15F7:C7E8:B6BD:962D (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just posted to Talk:Kingdom of Aksum in breach of your PBLOCK. DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Spamming the ArbCom talk page too[215]? Defintely a wider block. DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I am allowed to respond on the talk page to 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:15F7:C7E8:B6BD:962D (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Please use the proper channels as pointed out in the notice that was given on your talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are not allowed to respond on the Talk page. That's what the block is for, preventing you from posting there. Editing it while logged out is WP:SOCKing and can result in your entire account being blocked. I suggest you drop it and move on to other topics. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you stop being bullies. Poor conduct by all and clearly Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Thank you for proving such. 2A00:23EE:2170:3E0E:354C:4385:D601:4F07 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You would do well to avoid responding while logged out. You contravened policy and were punished for it; that's not bullying. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh there have been many instances, instead of responding and defending the use of poor unscholarly sources you have chosen to ban and do all sorts. That is bullying 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:D89F:1932:258C:B161 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't ban you, and if you continue to comment on this without going through the proper channels I forsee this IP address range of yours being blocked as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is NOT "bullying." That is responding to your poor behavior. Strange though it might seem to you, Wikipedia has rules, and those rules are enforced, whether or not you like those rules or agree with them. Ravenswing 07:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    EnterpriseyBot not updating Vandalism information[edit]

    For the past week, EnterpriseyBot (talk · contribs) has not updated {{Vandalism information}} whenever a vandalism level changes (Task 5). The root cause of the problem appears to be shown on Revert Visualizer, as the page continuously shows 0 RPM, an inaccuracy given RedWarn still shows reverts per minute correctly. Enterprisey has been inactive since 10 February, rendering an attempt to bring this to his attention moot. Luckily, in the last 24 hours, Philipnelson99 and I have managed to provide a few updates using RedWarn's tools. While any and all assistance to keep this up to date is appreciated, I would like to see if Enterprisey could possibly be reached outside of Wikipedia or if an alternative bot can be used to resume automated updates. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 08:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the bot uses that website, it seems that it just uses Wikipedia's /w/api.php - the website one isn't working because the revisions feed it would have used is returning errors (CORS and 404), those you can see if you open the browser console and refresh the page. Not that this observation helps solve the problem in any way. – 2804:F1...75:A125 (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JalenFolf I've been able to get the defcon script script that the bot runs on working locally too[216], I'm assuming Enterprisey's cron job is failing or something. Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor aggressively labeling edits as "vandalism"[edit]

    The Doom Patrol, having already reverted 3 times, is aggressively labeling other's edits as "vandalism"[217][218][219] in order to continue imposing his thoroughly unclear write-up, even after warning.[220] He is not stopping here, but even posting warnings on other editors talk pages against "vandalism" that never took place.[221]

    By falsely accusing me of violating "WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL" with this edit, it is clear that his falsification is certainly not limited to accusing others of vandalism. Clearly this user is having WP:CIR issues. Rzvas (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. The Doom Patrol has made 3 reverts also on Enforcement Directorate[222][223][224] by removing reliably sourced content only because finds the content to be "misusing Wikipedia for propaganda". Ratnahastin (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, this report bypasses several necessary steps expected from a responsible editor, such as discussion on the talk page, seeking dispute resolution, third opinion etc. Besides, ANI is not the venue for dispute resolution or reporting edit wars. This report constitutes harassment and evasion of the aforementioned processes. But it's asking too much from those who don't even follow H:FIES.
    These two have been edit warring as a tag team. Starting at Katchatheevu by Ratnahastin [225] (no explanation). Told to explain in talk before further reverting. Rzvas entered without explanation but a personal attack. Asked to explain in talk and warned with a message, but response was [226]. Here comes Ratnahastin [227], again no explanation, warned with same message. At this point, Ratnahastin also initiated revert war at ED by wikihounding me, reinstating fake propaganda figures/challenged material without clear explanation [228], warned but no use. Cycle continued by Rzvas [229][230], switching roles.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You edited this article much later and people do check your edits when they find you disruptive. It is not surprising. Rzvas (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Doom Patrol has now made 4th revert and he is still calling constructive edits a "vandalism" and warning against vandalism on talk page when vandalism never happened.[231][232] Rzvas (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if all their reverts were in the past 24 hours (which they aren't), The Doom Patrol did not violate the three reverts rule, since consecutive reverts, uninterrupted by another editor, count as one. I have no opinion whether they are right about propaganda. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked TDP for 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thinker78's forum shopping and IDHT[edit]

    Thinker78 is banned from editing due to long-term conduct issues and I've enforced this with an indefinite block. He may appeal at any time by following the instructions at WP:UNBAN. Per WP:CBAN, I'm closing this after 24 hours rather than 72 because the consensus is near-unanimous (with the minority supporting a topic ban, rather than no ban at all) and I see no reason to drag this out further. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    After seeing Thinker78's responses to comments regarding their behavior, it has become painfully clear to me that this needs to be escalated to AN/I where the behavior can actually be examined. I was uninvolved with Thinker78 prior to my comments yesterday but feel I must take action to protect the encyclopedia from further disruption. An editor made a rather convincing argument here that Thinker78 was indeed forum shopping back in January and then they are blocked for the same behavior in February by ScottishFinnishRadish. Thinker78 then proceeds to wikilawyer the admins considering the appeals by posting long quotes of policies rather than reflecting on their own actions. Over half a dozen people told Thinker78 that their actions were wrong, but they refused to listen. In the same vein, they filed this arbitration request which was rightfully declined. They again refused to reflect on their actions. Myself and others attempted to intervene at Thinker's talk page to educate and help them correct their behaviors only to have policies thrown at us and be ignored. I honestly believe that Thinker78 thinks they are doing the right thing, but as I have said before, following individual policies to the letter while ignoring their spirits and how they interact with each other is a disaster waiting to happen. Thinker78's behavior has been disrupting others from improving the encyclopedia and wasting the time of the community. I really don't know how to deal with this other than sanctions. Noah, AATalk 12:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thinker78 should voluntarily commit to take a several months-long break from editing to reflect on everything and rethink his approach.—Alalch E. 12:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clear forum shopping. They didn't get the answer they wanted in their unblock requests, but persisted until their talk page access was revoked. When the block expired they went to Arbcom. When that was declined they went to XRV, where the original block and the talk page revocation are being soundly endorsed, and Thinker78 is only surviving that discussion unblocked because of some rule some editors seem to have invented that we can't discuss the reporter's behaviour there. Well, I disagree: there is no parliamentary privilege on Wikipedia. Administrators are bound to accountability for their actions, but that does not extend to being endlessly pestered about an action that the community has soundly endorsed. Thinker78's campaign against ScottishFinnishRadish now amounts to harassment, and they will stop immediately, if not voluntarily then by being blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courtesy link: the XRV discussion that Ivanvector mentions, and Hurricane Noah also refers obliquely to, where Thinker's original block is being soundly endorsed, is at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. Bishonen | tålk 13:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
      It's also relevant to mention there was a picture of a penis on Thinker's page until today. [233] Noah, AATalk 13:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for community ban[edit]

    • Support. While the original reversal[234] of an admin's action, to restore a trolling/unhelpful comment might have been a minor infraction, edit warring to repeat[235] this was already over the line, and (given this was not a first offence) rightly attracted a block. The wikilawyering that followed, on Thinker's user page, at arbcom (as a case request), and most recently at WP:AARV has been characterised by Thinker's cast iron certitude in their own righteousness, and patronising dismissal of any and all advice they might be in error. This has caused a huge time sink. The revelation they've been rocking a dick pic[236] on their user page, and their invocation[237] of Guatemalan death squads as a group parallel to admins, completes the case that this is not an editor likely to be a net benefit to the Project. Bon courage (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight clarification, I reverted the original IP's trolling, but not as an administrator's action, it was just a revert that anyone could have done. Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's quite clear from all their behavior that Thinker is just not going to change and I feel this would solve the issue of future disruption and wasting of the community's time. While one instance of reverting the removal trolling and forum shopping and canvassing a discussion would have been okay had they learned from it and moved on, it's now clear they aren't going to learn and this will keep reoccurring. Not to mention the harassment of ScottishFinnishRadish and the WP:PA comparing an editor to a Guatemalan death squad is just too far. A community ban seems to be the only solution to ending this madness. Noah, AATalk 13:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Their judgement is now so far out it's straight down. Borrowing my comment from XRV, Thinker78 is basically just trolling by now. They are clearly deaf to advice and blind to the consequence that CIR must be a concern. The sheer amount of volunteer time and effort that has by now been devoted to his 'case' is bad enough. But dick pics on user pages? WTAF. Sound judgment? Forum shopping on multiple admin noticeboards. Sound judgement? It's all about as sound as the restoration of troll comments that started this whole saga originally. ——Serial Number 54129 13:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This entire episode is bizarre. A veteran editor with 20k+ edits should know better. I hope everything is okay with this person, but it's clear the recent behavior is disruptive and a time sink for the community. Nemov (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I can predict the immutable future here, but on the slim chance I can alter it: some people at arbcom suggested AARV would have been more appropriate; going to AARV is a very poor reading of the room, but not insane. How about we just treat the AARV on the merits (i.e. I expect a landslide support for the block and talk page removal), tell Thinker78 that they cannot expect much respect if they start using Guatemalan death squad imagery and to stop it, let Thinker78 see that they are in the extreme minority, and at the end of that, they can decide either to abide by some norms that are different than theirs, or leave voluntarily? If, after the AARV, they keep doing something that is clearly against consensus, then somebody indef blocks them, no additional discussion needed. While disruptive, they are certainly not NOTHERE. This will take only slightly longer than Votes For Banning, and the actual disruption would not be much larger (as long as we don't let it be). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I support this idea. —Alalch E. 14:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I just don't see this as working, sadly. They were told multiple times by many editors over the last few months that their edits were problematic in multiple venues and it made no difference whatsoever. They know many people view their edits as problematic but they have still persisted despite that. Noah, AATalk 14:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think giving this last chance is reasonable. It should be crystal clear at this point that the consensus for how to interpret these PAGs is firmly against their position, and that their view on where it is appropriate to discuss or provide a notification about editor behavior is far outside what community consensus allows. If they express an understanding that their reading and interpretations are out of line with the community's reading and interpretations then hopefully we can move past this disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't seem to find any mention of AARV/XRV/Administrative Action Review on the case request.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Implicit if not explicit in the case request is that they should take their concerns to community. As such, XRV was a reasonable next step. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I read ARC is that some of the admins that commented probably wouldn't have blocked but it was fairly unanimous that the block was reasonable, as well as the subsequent talk page revocation, and that Thinker78 ought to take their concerns about what they call censorship to the community, not that they should continue pursuing their vendetta against ScottishFinnishRadish. XRV is more strongly reflecting that view. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I happen to be in the (evidently rather small) contingent of people who think the by-now-ancient original question of "should editors persist over reverts in removing talk page comments pertaining to the improvement of a Wikipedia article merely for being stupid?" has an answer of "no", I think that Thinker's conduct since the original incident has been increasingly wild to the point of now being utterly out-of-pocket and incompatible with working on a collaborative encyclopedia. I think that something needs to be done to prevent them from continuing to do stupid crap that wastes everybody's time, so I concur here with Floq and SFR. jp×g🗯️ 20:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose a ban on restoring talk page posts. I agree with Floquenbeam above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
      And I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      One thing that came to mind to me, Deepfriedokra, was a ban from the project talk space so the forum shopping there would cease. If they aren't outright banned, something along these lines in addition to what you suggested may be appropriate. Noah, AATalk 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't like that idea per se, but the tendentious battle ground behavior must cease. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A ban on posting invitations to comment in discussions, broadly construed? I think something should be done in regards to the forum shopping and canvassing. Noah, AATalk 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Switch to CBAN. User really is a "bad fit." And per all the rest of the CBAN supports, particularly Schazjmd -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think I will agree with User:Floquenbeam. I only became aware of the full extent of the long lectures being directed by User:Thinker78 at administrators about a day ago. I made a statement in response to their Request for Arbitration, agreeing with them that the guidelines on the editing of talk page posts by others are poorly worded and should be revised. However, I also thought that their restoration of troll posts was mistaken and disruptive. My concern about the talk page guidelines had been focused on another editor, User:Z80Spectrum, whose conduct came to resemble that of Thinker78. Z80Spectrum had posted a large amount of material to an article talk page, which was removed. I tried to mediate the question of whether to restore the material, but I failed the mediation. Z80Spectrum then made a long post to WP:ANI, and then lectured the community, and was indefinitely blocked. The conduct of Thinker78 is almost identical to that of Z80Spectrum, lecturing the community. I provided one more warning to Thinker78 on their user talk page, less than 24 hours ago, and maybe it was too late. I am not, at this time, supporting or opposing the ban proposal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic-ban on restoration of deleted talk page material. I think that the guidelines on deletion of talk page material are poorly written, but that does not justify or excuse the restoration of trolling. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban on restoring removed talk page posts. This is a no-brainer at this point. Noah, AATalk 16:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban per Bon courage, who summarizes matters well. The dick pic is outlandish misconduct. I would probably have blocked myself if not for the fact that I am traveling and would be unable to discuss it for many hours. Cullen328 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think that, barring a radical, immediate change in behavior, bans from various bits and pieces will just invite more wiki-litigant conduct and result in even more time sinks. The dick pic on their user page was an egregious affront that would earn any editor an indefinite block on the spot. Thinker78 just thinks it was "controversial" according to their edit summary. I quote from my note at XRV: "Placing dick pics anywhere but in articles concerning penises is invariably grounds for an immediate indefinite block, no matter how long it is before somebody notices, the more so when it's a tone-deaf and weirdly un-self-aware allusion to "don't be a dick." ... There is a fundamental incompatibility with the community, manifested by boundary-pushing, a lack of self-reflection, and a objectivist conviction of their own destiny. ... T78's fundamental mistake is to place themself above the community, which has given them more than enough feedback.... Acroterion (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I should have been more specific, I support a community ban. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full CBAN per Acroterion (whose support I read as being for the CBAN rather than the TBAN). DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment isn't this going to get confusing? Some of the Supports are for the TBAN in opposition to the CBAN and some are vice versa. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I should have given it a full level three header. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it TPO-permissible to do that now and divide the existing supports accordingly? Not sure myself. DeCausa (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is what happens when I take a nap. 😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wouldn't be opposed to my comments on the matter being moved. Noah, AATalk 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban. I wanted to support Floquenbeam's suggestion and was hoping this recent conduct by Thinker78 was a recent aberration (perhaps triggered by some dispute), so I started going through Thinker78's talk page. Unfortunately, their 2024 behavior is merely a continuation of the same behavior they've been exhibiting for a long time: July 2022, (misuse of admin-help template) August 2022, June 2023, September 2023, (misuse of admin-help template) October 2023, similar issue with SFR about removal of an IP comment/block. Despite their constructive contributions, Thinker78's persistent wikilawyering (such as [238][239]) when someone disagrees with them creates a black hole in discussions, devouring all light and energy in the vicinity. Helpful criticism is responded to with a link to WP:CIVILITY. Warning him gets an accusation of "misuse of administrative powers". The contradiction between him repeatedly lecturing other editors about consensus, civility, and assuming good faith when he fails to demonstrate those in his own interactions with them honestly baffles me. Thinker78 has made a lot of constructive edits (I went through the most recent 2000), which I appreciate, but in discussions, too often he refuses to drop the stick. When he filed at arbcom, he was prepared for a boomerang, so he realizes that his approach is likely counter-productive but doesn't care. Enough is enough. Schazjmd (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Opposed. I'm disappointed that there is talk to get me kicked out of the project. It would be more fair and objective to not emphasize only controversies in talk page posts but also analyze the context and check my positive talk pages contributions. In addition, as you stated, I have thousands of positive mainspace and WP contributions that should also be weighed.
      checkY July 2022. I agree that I should have discussed in a more collegial way and in a less rash way.
      checkY Misuse of admin-help template. I had spent hours analyzing, researching, and preparing my replies. I was emotional, pained because my hard work only resulted in accusations. I guess for a subconscious desire of being comforted I reached out, but on hindsight, yes, you are right, I should not have used that template.
      ☒N June 2023. An editor came accusing me of vandalism for making good faith changes of a guideline page. An admin responded and said,First, I want to thank you both for trying to talk this out per WP:BRD and WP:CON. Thinker78, I think your edits there were well-meant (and clearly not vandalsm). Admin proceeded to advise me and I followed their advise. Also, another editor said, "@Carchasm: this edit didn't show that Thinker78 wasn't reading the WP:SMALLCAT policy. Rather, it showed that they had read my comment above and those of others in the discussions.
      ☒N September 2023. An editor didn't like I shared an article in a talk page discussion (according to your standard wasn't that wikilawyering on their part?). Here is the relevant discussion Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#New claims involving the CIA, which was closed by ScottishFinnishRadish without issue.
      ☒N October 2023. In this case I believe it was proper to get the attention of an admin due to civility policy issues. Here is the relevant discussion that generated this request (and dispute) Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Question about RfC sections. I think you may agree that telling an editor that they "left crap" and they are being "pathetic" are gross violations of the civility policy.
      ☒N Wikilawyering (two diffs). In the first, an editor (JayBeeEll) was accusing me in an article talk page then I reached out to them in their talk page.
      • In the second, i inquired about the block of an ip and had a discussion about it with ScottishFinnishRadish.
      ☒N A warning by an admin intervening in a content dispute should be preceded by using the consensus process or letting the consensus process run its proper course.
      Example of positive talk page contributions,
      I have to point out that I am sensitive to undue censorship and lack of objectivity because of my experiences in life, including the fact the government in Guatemala used to kill people for disagreeing with it or for criticizing it or for reading the wrong book and I lived for a part of that period of time. I would expect a proper measure of empathy. I am not perfect but I believe I have improved as an editor with time and I am willing to keep improving. Thinker78 (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      My diffs were examples of behavior on your part similar to what has happened this year, not claims that you were necessarily wrong in those discussions. You don't seem to be grasping that this is about how you approach disputes. Schazjmd (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If I was not wrong in those discussions, why list them as examples where I was wrong? The key word is that you stated that unfortunately I had engaged in that behavior, behavior that you make the case was wrong. In the first two, I agree with you that I should have approached things better, but in the others where I cross, why do you think I approached the discussions in a wrong way that justify kicking me out of the project? Thinker78 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When everyone says you are wrong, you almost certainly are. Your cumulative behavior is what justifies a community ban. One individual action would not justify it, but when taken together, these collectively warrant a ban. The reason for this is simple. Your approach to handling situations disrupts others from contributing to improving the encyclopedia and wastes the time and effort of the community. You have long been asked to cease your battleground stance in discussions and you have ignored this advice time and time again. Everyone here has simply said enough is enough. Noah, AATalk 23:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      then I reached out to them in their talk page A more accurate description was that you engaged in tedious, whiny wikilawyering on my talk-page. --JBL (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Passerby comment: Thinker78, note that one of the very few comments not to !vote for a sanction was Floquenbeam, who suggested instead that you perhaps resolve not to compare people who disagree with you to Guatemalan death squads. Rather than take one of the few people on your side's advice, you have elected to instead... resume talking about Guatemalan death squads. I would recommend noticing the response your current approach has gotten, thinking your plea for understanding through more carefully, and trying a radically different tack here. SnowFire (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think Thinker78 continues to lack insight and continues the same behavior that has brought us here. Yes, he's made good edits. That's why I at first sought a TBAN. All the good is negated by the continuing behavior issues. Clearly, he's left us with no other recourse. And this is not Guatemala. Treating other users as if they are Guatemalan death squads is not acceptable. Maybe Thinker78 will learn to leave that baggage behind. There's no room for it on Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And cries of censorship! and free speech! are out of place in a curated encyclopedia with rules about content. If one disagrees with the curation of content, one should calmly discuss the difference of opinion without making personal attacks or ridiculous comparisons. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've been around for some of the longstanding issues that Schazjmd linked. Willingness to drop sticks and take feedback is critical to participation in a collaborative project. Thinker78 has repeatedly demonstrated his unwillingness or inability to do so. I have a thick skin when it comes to editors comparing me to the agents of a murderous military autocracy, as T78 did yesterday, but our volunteers in general should be protected from those who promote such absurdities. For the record, I support the project-space ban and discussion invitation ban as second and third choices. I hope T78 gets a clue and comes back with a solid unblock request, but I can't support a half-measure here after years of warnings and a temporary block were insufficient. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN On their talk page, this user says "But I guess that is irrelevant because it appears editors can be blocked just because admins feel like it." they are almost correct in this, and them saying this as if it's a surprising discovery reflects the exact misunderstanding that got them into this mess. I'll expand: Wikipedia does not operate by policy, it operates by consensus. There are plenty of non-policy pages that we treat as more important than the actual policy as it is written down. Several of our valid reasons to ban someone are technically only written down as an essay or in an RFC somewhere, or only exist as a previous, similar case at ANI. Wikipedia administrators are occasionally allowed to get ahead of the rules in order to stop behaviour that is patently obnoxious and disruptive to the community but not technically explicitly forbidden. The understanding around administrator's power to ban is that they only use this power when the community agrees it is needed. Not that they only use it when the rules say it is allowed. And this goes everything on the 'pedia. When an admin or experienced user warns you about something that is not in the rules, it's usually because the "rule" is a previously established consensus to do something a certain way, which isn't necessarily to be found on a policy page. Most editors cotton on to this, but Thinker78 hasn't, and is refusing to adapt, making it impossible for them to edit cooperatively. Aditionally, forumshopping and canvassing are both listed explicitly in policy, and those policies are being ignored in favour of more canvassing and forumshopping, so I think it's safe to say this user is too far down the IDONTHEARIT hole to change their ways. I say, let them come back when they've dug their way out. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a CBAN. I've had the strong impression for some time now that Thinker78 is either unable or unwilling to collaborate effectively with other editors, and the events of the last couple weeks have only crystallized it (per Bon courage, SN54129, and others). This is one of those unfortunate times when we have to tell someone "thank you for your contributions, but we can't go on like this". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full CBAN per Acroterion. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN. Thinker78 has perhaps the thinnest skin of any long-term editor I've ever come across, and the least ability to constructively receive criticism or guidance. This is combined with some astonishing incompetence regarding appropriate venues for pursuing grievances. Among the inappropriate things they do on their user-page is keeping records of these grievances, part of their pattern of long-term disruption (example but you have to look through the history for more). Other examples in which they have pursued petty vendettas in inappropriate venues, wasting community time and harrassing quality contributors, include [243][244], [245][246] and [247]. Also people keep talking about all their good contributions but it seems to me like it's all fiddling with categories, the most pointless kind of pseudo-editing. The sooner they go away, the better. --JBL (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full CBAN per my comments at XRV (1 2). Daniel (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support full CBAN - Just from what I grokked from the Arbitration request, Thinker strikes me more as someone who is more interested in adherence to a process, rather than adherence to consensus. Policy wonks such as that tend to run into friction on Wikipedia one way or another, as they tend to be unable to fathom why we discourage following our own written policies to the letter, especially if the decision in question tends to go against them. This is most obvious with their comments on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, which read more as him desperately trying to convince non-Arbitrators to try and put pressure on the Arbitrators to accept his case request. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To grok in fullness, you can read the XRV thread.... -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I read the first few paragraphs of it just now and that only reinforces my argument for a community ban. It's a very bad look when someone who's coming in with no context roughly around the middle of The Battle of the Pelennor Fields is able to tell from that chapter alone that Frodo left Bag End and later takes a boat to the Uttermost West. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support CBAN Unable to edit collaboratively. They are absolutely convinced they are right, wil not listen to advice, continue to lecture more experienced editors by quoting verbatim chunks of policy at them whilst being utterly unable to grasp those policies themselves. The level of disruption they are causing can only be stopped by an indef. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban - The only interaction this user has with me is this message seven years ago, that now I see is rules lawyering attempt to defend a user blocked by Floquenbeam whose only contributions is attempting to add images to a school article from a video game website. Very disappointed to see that obsessive behavior from 2017 continuing now to the year 2024. My response then; they didn't write back. This impending ban will hopefully stop them from disrupting the morale of other users and that they will spend their time away from the internet on something else better for their mind rather than quarrel with random contributors on the slightest implications of their "wrongdoing". theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban: I have seen issues with this user in a series of CfD's concerning politicians by cause of death, with only minimal improvement:
    • Prefer indef block, cban would be 2nd choice per my comments at XRV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Site ban after having read the posts at the ArbCom talk page, which illustrate that this is an editor who is unable or unwilling to accept anything less than their way, and should unfortunately be given the highway. I didn't view the pornographic picture and don't want to view it. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, you do not. (It's in my brain.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban - Thinker78 only seems to be able to respond to criticism by quoting guidelines and insisting that their actions are justified because they are technically right, so I'm going to respond in kind. This is excerpted from Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads, subsection "You can't argue Wikipedia into capitulation":

    Wikipedia's administrative processes are entirely geared to protecting project stability, not toward individual "justice", a "fair hearing", or "proving who is technically in the right". [...] Anyone who approaches Wikipedia administration and dispute resolution from a "justice" perspective will be disappointed and may make their circumstances worse, quite quickly, and sometimes irreparably. [...] You will be sanctioned for habitually badgering others to satisfy your petty demands, being excessively individualistic at the expense of others, excuse-making or finger-pointing at others, nit-picking, clearly trying to just "win" at all costs, stubbornly "not getting it", dragging out conflict just to make a point, or waging a petty "righting great wrongs" micro-crusade for personal honor that no one else cares about.

    Administrative enforcement on WP necessarily takes this approach to recalcitrant hotheads, because the very act of arguing ad nauseam, to defy the collective peer pressure of the editorial community telling one to change one's ways, is considered disruptive in and of itself. The community, and in particular the administrative and arbitration corps, care primarily about the functioning of the Wikipedia "organs", like content creation and source checking; any individual cell (i.e., you) causing inflammation, for whatever reason, is a cancer to be removed. It can take a long time for some editors to internalize this and adjust, especially if they're used to rancorous debate on online forums. Some never do, and get indefinitely blocked or site-banned, or get in so much perennial trouble (repeated short-term blocks, topic- and interaction-bans, etc.) that they "quit in disgust". Inability to recognize that Wikipedia is not the Internet and is not academia or any other fully public sphere, but is akin to a closed game with a specific set of player-conduct rules, is in the end a working-with-others competence failure. Either one gets it, eventually, or one is shown the door.

    If Thinker78 cannot see themselves in this, there's nothing more that we can do to help, nor are we obligated to continue trying. The standard offer is always available if they manage to internalize any of this, but right now it's time to show them the door. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposals for a topic ban related to forum shopping and canvassing[edit]

    There are two different proposals listed here that attempt to provide a solution to the forum shopping and canvassing issues based on feedback I have received. Noah, AATalk 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that I support a C-ban above any other proposal, however, something along these lines could work as an alternative to a C-ban or as a condition for an unblock. Noah, AATalk 18:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:Canvassing,

    In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

    Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

    I only publicized the discussion in an objective manner to seek more uninvolved and objective input because my talk page has very limited views. In no way I ever sought to influence the discussion in a particular way. Thinker78 (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you please stop trying to teach experienced editors already familiar with policies such as this one? Noah, AATalk 23:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thinker78, please read the room. I think that unless you *try* to take other people's perspectives and reflect on what brought you here, this is going to end with you being banned from the project. Mason (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison I read the room. I think the rough consensus so far is to give me a community ban, which I think means kicking me out of the project. It is very similar to experiences I have lived in other companies for things as little as requesting eye protection or for trying to follow company policy despite threats of getting fired. Yeah, I am usually and chronically accused of causing trouble. And many times it is groupthink like here. It reminds me of the Inquisition, where the accused was forced to confess their sins or face punishment.
    Right now I am in a situation outside Wikipedia where I have received death threats and threats of torture for various undue reasons. More recently, I stopped a robbery in the street and gang members did not like it. Who knows how long I have left to live but I have lived a honest and principled life.
    I have had a headache for most of the day reading many comments that lack proper contextual and objective analysis and it is affecting my health. I already had a few months ago what may have been a stroke. I had an intense headache; the next morning I had my left arm numb and I had my hand numb for a week or two. I collaborated in this encyclopedia for more than 20 years and well it is rather painful to depart in this way, in what I perceive is an editorial lynching. My heart is not in good shape either, mainly for the loss of my loved ones.
    All I can say is that despite our initial differences, I enjoyed categorizing with you and the other editors. I bid you so long. I think my time will be better spent in other projects. In the unlikely case I am not banned, I would follow advice and take a break for several months, if I live that long. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thinker78:, you don't seem to understand that policy. There was no with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus as you were posting discussion threads about a user talk discussion that wasn't about achieving consensus for an article. CONACHIEVE explains how consensus is defined in relation to Canvassing. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion invitation ban[edit]

    I figured I might as well propose these. Thinker78 should be topic banned from inviting others to comment in discussions, broadly construed, as a result of the canvassing and repeated forum shopping that has taken place. Noah, AATalk 16:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Serial Number 54129: Dont want to delete it since it was expressed above that the first was too much, but I added the original proposal below. Noah, AATalk 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban from project talk space[edit]

    Thinker78 is banned from editing the project talk space altogether due to canvassing and repeated forum shopping. Noah, AATalk 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose as too narrow. The only remedy short of a CBAN that would come close to working is a flat-out ban from Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk:, and User talk: namespaces, with a carveout for his own user talk space. (You forget a lot of discussions - most importantly deletion, Arbitration, most dispute resolution, and BLP discussions - are done in Wikipedia: space and most on-wiki canvassing is done on user talk pages or in WP: space, so a ban from WT: space alone has a loophole big enough to fit a blue whale through.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Someone add this as spam[edit]

    Please block https://www.surahyaseenpdf.info/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berak Al Bukhori (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you referring to SurahYaseen111? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you two have engaged in an edit war over adding the above link in Ya-Sin. Strange that you request the link YOU added in the first place to get blacklisted, but I'll leave more experienced users to this. (sorry that the diff is broken, at least on my end) The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible impersonation of Max Lugavere[edit]

    Max Lugavere is a low-carb/paleo diet promoter who published a book promoting a low-carb paleo diet [248], he has also defended the carnivore diet. On Social Media (Twitter/X), Max a few weeks ago complained that his Wikipedia page was been targeted by "vegan activists". His tweet got about 16K views, so people would have seen this but he has since not commented about the page. He seems unaware of the article talk-page. In his tweet he was requesting for his followers to go over and edit his article.

    A user claiming to be Max turned up on his talk-page [249] (he never edited the article). The user has since abandoned this account and is using an IP address [250].

    I am not entirely convinced that the account Vinestreet97 is Max. The account and IP have made unfounded claims that Max is not low-carb. This is quite bizarre considering Max is a well known low-carb diet influencer who has spent in total about 8 years online promoting low-carb and paleo diets over all his social media accounts and wrote an entire book on it. Right now, Max, Mark Hyman, Steven Gundry are some of the most famous social media influencers promoting low-carb. I suspect the account is an impersonation or troll attempt.

    New accounts are editing the article removing specific wording, I believe there is a possible case of WP:MEATPUPPET behaviour and the article should be semi-protected if this continues. I also believe that the Vinestreet97 account should be locked until that account is officially verified to be Max as it may be an impersonation. There have been various impersonations from users editing nonsense on the carnivore diet article in the past, it may be the same user behind this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say a block pending verification is warranted, since this just seems to be garden variety self-promotion if accurate, and impersonation if not. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which IP? 76.50.244.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) geolocates to Santa Monica, California, and 100.35.27.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to Newark, New Jersey; and they use different ISPs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    76.50.244.14 [251] is the same user as Vinestreet97, an account which claims to be Max. They use exactly the same writing style and cite the same links. Max says he resides in both Los Angeles and New York [252] so it is possible the account is him but the denial that is he low-carb is just very odd like I said as he has published a book promoting this type of diet and is very open on social media about promoting this. Without verification the account should at least be soft blocked. It's impossible to know if it is really him or not without confirmation. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is admin @JPxG making a false accusation alleging I was involved in doxxing someone else admin abuse?[edit]

    TheSpacebook, please take a break from starting threads. That said, yes, it is clear from the context that the accusation that you applauded doxxing is false and I would encourage people not to make or repeat any false accusations. 28bytes (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As they did here to me and also falsely accused me of applauding someone else of doxxing someone: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216801902&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffonly=1

    This was later refuted as being completely false by many other editors (including other admins), and another admin has now redacted JPxG’s false statement, and warned others to not reinstate this false accusation.

    Here is an example of another editor confirming that this allegation was completely false, saying I can't see that TheSpacebook was involved in any doxxing. WPO member Vigilant did the doxxing. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216812696&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffonly=1)

    However, later seemingly clarified that I wasn’t “explicitly” involved with doxxing someone, which suggests I may have implicitly involved. Should admins be throwing around these covert-semantics which are extremely serious and damaging allegations to make about someone? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216918024&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffonly=1

    Due to the serious nature of the allegation that was made about me, and the possible covert suggestion that I implicitly did it, question is this: Is this how admins are expected to behave, is it in line with their responsibilities to publicly make false accusations about other editors? TheSpacebook (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not say that. jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody who wants to see what this is about is invited to read the AN thread. jp×g🗯️ 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have amended the title to accurately reflect what you said. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that when a new thread at ANI is created about an ongoing, active thread at AN, that it is almost always an indication that the entire subject has jumped the shark. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The thread has since died down and become inactive, and this is an extremely serious allegation warranting its own incident. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inactive? There have been like 20 posts in the last hour or two. (Admittedly half are probably by you editing your own comments...) Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilty as charged… But I have since exclusively drafted in my notes app, so they’ll be less of that going forward TheSpacebook (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to say but this is on you, Floq. You unblocked them, you now own their subsequent disruption. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang per WP:BOOMERANG. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (EC)Support boomerang, although advised multiple that they were going to far and were well into bludgeoning territory here we are... At ANI... For an issue that as far as I can tell is done and dusted (JPxG has already retracted the claim [253]) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @28bytes: Not to be an asinine pedant, but regarding the "accusation that you applauded doxxing", the post I made was "some guy did this, and TheSpacebook's reaction seems to have been to post a clapping emoji" [sic], which I clarified later was precisely two posts after the dox post in the discussion thread, and formatted as a direct quote-response to a separate post -- they obviously did not dox GN, they just exhibited a shocking lack of taste by participating gladly in the thread where some other guy did. I have offered to write additional bold-text clarifying notes to give more precision (to a statement which already seemed somewhat clear to me), but I am somewhat concerned by the idea that I just completely made shit up, seemingly on the basis that somebody said I did a bunch of times, rather than the actual text of the post. jp×g🗯️ 21:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m kindly asking you to stop making false accusations about me. There was mass condemnation when the doxxing happened in the thread. And I clearly applauded the post saying I was unblocked. And I am against doxxing, as my original issue was that Wikipedia was displaying notable figures addresses. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG: If my closing wording is imprecise, I apologize. Hopefully people reading the relevant threads will be able to reach their own conclusions about the issue. That said, my 2¢ would be to just let this one go, as I recommended to TheSpacebook on their talk page. @TheSpacebook: Please re-read my friendly suggestion on your talk page that you take a break from posting here. I am trying to prevent this from unnecessarily escalating further. 28bytes (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, fair enough. jp×g🗯️ 22:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Sea slave trade[edit]

    AzaqQara (talk · contribs) self-identified as Someone Qırımlı (talk · contribs) who was given a host of warning templates is going off at Black Sea slave trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), using fake edit summaries to protect their fork of the article and making strange edits to the article. I think we need some help over here. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AzaqQara should be blocked per WP:SOCK and WP:DISRUPTIVE. They are making false claims of "Fake, discrimination and hate speech" [254], [255], [256] which is generally disruptive. They have made the same type of edits on their other account Someone Qırımlı on the same article Black Sea slave trade. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to add, that this user may e a sock puppet of User:Someone Qırımlı (currently under investigation:[257] ), who have used these two accounts as well as at least 2-3 IP-adresses to delete referenced information about the Crimean slavery and slave trade from the Black Sea slave trade article, and replace it with information that presents this particular slavery and slave trade in a benevolent way. The have also created an entire article: Draft: The Crimean slave trade, to forward these opinions. --Aciram (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Requesting lock persistent IP-vandalism. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They have vandalised the page again, the time it took you to write the above.--Aciram (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ip-adress of this user is still vandalising the article: [258]--Aciram (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AzaqQara/ Someone Qırımlı / [259], [260] are all the same user claiming the article is "fake" [261], [262]. The article should be semi-protected. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protection was requested six hours ago, but there's a bit of a backlog at the moment. Wikishovel (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for blocking one of the IP-adresses used for the edit war, but we can expect the user to try to continue their agenda with the rest of the IP-adresses and their two registered accounts, particularly since their bias-article Draft:The Crimean slave trade has not been deleted.--Aciram (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So Black Sea slave trade semi-protected for two weeks. AzaqQara blocked as a sockpuppet. Someone Qırımlı blocked from the Black Sea slave trade page for a year or until they can convince other editors on Talk:Black Sea slave trade that they can be a productive editor. If they become disruptive on the talk page then let me know and I'll block them from there as well. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet[edit]

    Message from the Teahouse on the 22 of March 2024:

    Hello. I just want to signal that @Magonz: and @DTMGO:, mainly active on controversial subjects like genocide of indigenous peoples, in a trolling manner, are the same user (positive check user), did some horrible translations from en.wiki to fr.wiki (they probably do not speak French), and edited the same articles simultaneously. Here is the page for reference. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It does seem that's the CU finding on frwiki.
    Separately, am I correct in concluding from that page that frwiki has no prohibition against publicly confirming IPs against users? Grandpallama (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is discouraged but I don’t think it’s straight out banned: De manière générale, ne pas révéler les adresses IP. (fr:WP:VIP) Northern Moonlight 04:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it enough for a block? The users are involved in a pov-pushing campaign and edit the same pages simultaneously. Encyclopédisme (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani and User:Khonsuhorus[edit]

    Repeatedly creating Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani under different names and has a history of warnings from April 2022‎.

    Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Poor sources[edit]

    Being discussed above at #Kingdom_of_Aksum_pags. We don't need multiple threads. Star Mississippi 12:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    @Ravens-wing if Wikipedia has rules then you should adhere to such using un scholarly sources is not on. Do you want to defend why you are doing such? 2A02:C7C:36FF:3600:A1E5:867F:3AF1:BCE8 (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello can you please show me diffs on what you mean by un scholarly sources, and did you notify ravens wing with the big red box at the top because they may not know because pinging is not enough,
    and also have you tried dispute resolution Maestrofin (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Habesha212 editing logged out and is just a continuation of the #Kingdom of Aksum pags section above (it's the same /64 as they used before) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ok Maestrofin (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to tell me what the blazes you're talking about? Ravenswing 10:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wicked Sunnnnnyyyyy[edit]

    I've blocked "Wicked Sunnnnnyyyyy" indefinitely for personal attacks and harrassment. They can explain why they felt it appropriate to insult other editors' mothers in extremely profane terms in an unblock request. firefly ( t · c ) 10:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can we get a block on User:Wicked Sunnnnnyyyyy for WP:NPA and WP:NOTHERE? One revert made him go on a string of abuses (in Hindi) in the edit summary [263], on my talk page [264] and user page [265]. Not the correct temperament for editing wikipedia and following what he said on my talk page it looks like he has a strong partisan interest which caused this reaction. MrMkG (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kyu re bhadwe? tere baap ka website hai re. Teri kyu itni maa chud rhi hai Teri maa ko choot Wicked Sunnnnnyyyyy (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Live example above. Plus in response to the notice he has gone on another string of abuses on his talk page [266] and my user page [267] [268] [269]. MrMkG (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wicked sunnnnnyyyyy said,
    Why you idiot? This is your father's website. Why is your mother fucking so much? Leave your mother free.
    ps This is not meant to be an attack this is a translation of what the user said above Maestrofin (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to say that I use Google translate Maestrofin (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Firefly, stwalkerster. I've removed talk page access as well. I see no point in giving them a platform. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. I was expecting them to continue almost immediately after I declined the unblock, at which point I was planning to do the same. I'm slightly surprised they didn't tbh. stwalkerster (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.130.91.119 is editing to push an agenda[edit]

    Please see the list of edits at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.130.91.119 (86.130.91.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). 100% of their edits are to specifically push an agenda:

    • Edits to systemd pushing the POV that systemd integration is at fault for the recent XZ backdoor. (Edits have been reverted.)
    • Edits to GNOME claiming that GNOME "was also instrumental in getting Linux distributions to adopt systemd and thus making the Linux platform as a whole more susceptible to severe security vulnerabilities". (Edits have been reverted.)
    • Edits to XZ Utils backdoor: "The service manager systemd is also implicated, as its sprawling complexity and large number of dependencies significantly increased the Linux platform attack surface."
    • A post on Talk:Freedesktop.org: "Someone should add a criticism section regarding the poor code quality and sprawling complexity of some freedesktop.org projects such as systemd which was recently implicated in the extremely serious XZ Utils backdoor."

    This seems clearly like someone with an axe to grind against systemd, GNOME, freedesktop.org, etc, and editing Wikipedia opportunistically to that end.

    (Thank you to User:QuickyWithTheWiki who reverted some of these edits.)

    Please note: I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor and am not versed in current Wikipedia policy, so apologies if I've found the wrong process. I'd really like to hand this off and let others evaluate it, rather than being involved with an ongoing process. Thank you.

    --Josh Triplett (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you tried talking to them? Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BRD and WP:AGF you should talk to the IP or warn them via their talk page before coming here. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much] 14:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Llama Tierna[edit]

    Llama Tierna (talk · contribs)

    Joseph Edelman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    The user has been engaged in disruptive behavior on Joseph Edelman due to a strong failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK. They have a concern about the use of Huffington Post and PinkNews sources on the page. and when they didn't get support for their position took it the BLP noticeboard and when that failed to muster up any support for their position, took it to o Jimbo's talk page. They have now again taken the matter to the BLP board, and simultaneously, took it again to Jimbo's talk page. Along the way, they have WP:THREATENed one of the other editors of the page, which as you will see there both accused them of COI without evidence and threatened them for having removed a warning from their page, which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. For their most recent foray to the BLP board, they engaged in a heavy round of WP:CANVASSing, posting a message (example) on the pages of a large but select subset of folks who had been involved in the previous discussions, not just pointing to the discussion but arguing for their side. They reject advice and warnings given to them (here they are today responding to an edit warring warning with "I don't agree with you.") By not listening to consensus and not dropping the stick, they have been wasting the time of an ever growing number of editors. Judging just by their talk page, they have not been experiencing this sort of friction on other pages which they edit; I don't know why this topic is a specific problem. I suggest a topic ban on Joseph Edelman, broadly considered (including his foundation and the charities which they support.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @NatGertler
    Well, I did WP:DROPTHESTICK. My concerns are no longer on the table after your last edit on the page. If the conversation had been more constructive from the start, without accusing me of so many sins, I wouldn't have had to run around so many boards and bother everyone. Llama Tierna (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When others have suggested adding more material from the source I used, you continued to decry the source. When someone suggested adding from much the same material, you accused them of the "sin" of a personal attack for criticizing not you but a comment you had made. You then continued to deny the viability of that source at the new BLP thread, despite the reaction to it at the previous BLP thread and the original Jimbo page thread. You continue to engaged in problematic activity even after I made that edit; here you are describing me to another editor as "unethical", apparently because I noted that the claim he'd made about your comment was indeed a claim about the comment, not a personal attack. (You also bear a bit of false witness there, as you claim that User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist had later removed the words "frankly silly" from their comment when that statement remains on the Talk page unedited.) If you've been having trouble with the degree of constructiveness of discussion, you may wish to look at your own actions. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Makks2010[edit]

    Makks2010 (talk · contribs · count · logs)
    I just spent a good deal of my afternoon and evening in Talk:India, following and responding to the user's queries and arguments. It is getting very tendentious now and they are admant on not understanding the guidelines and policies. I take it now as there's no point in continuing further discussion and leave it here to see if they need a topic ban or something. They were banned yesterday for editwarring and they still havent understood the reason for the ban. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I seeing this right? .....some weird nationality bigotry about sources? That said the editor is clearly overwhelming the talk page making it impossible to deal with all these points being raised. I suggest they slow down.... let's see if this is something they agree to. Moxy🍁 17:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're rapidly approaching indef territory here. Category spam that's been reverted, spamming the use of IABot on far too many pages, completely ignoring all the warnings they've been given, blatantly inaccurate posts on Talk:India (the claim, for instance, that the article doesn't discuss culture); edit-warring, for which they've already been blocked; and copyright violation. I don't believe this user is capable of editing productively or collaboratively. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, definitely a WP:NOTHERE case IMO. And they aren't taking it easy either. [270] and [271]. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, see this edit[272] changing " According to Hindu nationalists, Baqi destroyed " to " According to Hindu, Baqi destroyed " with the edit summar "unnecessary use of word nationalists, 'According to Hindu' is okay." As a proper sentence, we are attributing the quote to someone named Hindu! I'm blocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 06:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted it. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without comment on any other behaviours or edits. "Hindu" in this context is a reasonable demonym in some English variants; where other variants might prefer the plural "Hindus". The editor is essentially saying, "not just nationalists". No comment on whether that's an acceptable edit aligned to the sources, but it's not necessarily incorrect linguistically. Rotary Engine talk 06:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsourced additions continue.The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    HD86[edit]

    On 21 March, HD86 (talk · contribs) attempted to insert unreferenced info to Aleppo. My revert elicited a very vulgar response from them. Even when they were reminded of WP:CIVIL and WP:VERIFY, they continued asserting self-created Wikipedia rules that linking Wikipedia articles is enough of a reference (despite WP:CIRCULAR) and accused me of vandalism: [273] Yet, when it comes to other editors, HD86 understands that adding references is necessary and their rule is not perfect: [274] They have lectured me and Kansas Bear about what constitutes a better use of our time, that is adding sources for their unsourced additions. Even though I have backed away from this dispute, no admin has taken action, and the unresolved issue remanifested with the same personal attacks and WP:LAWYERING towards Wikaviani: [275][276][277] Violations of WP:CIR, WP:CIVIL, WP:EW, and so on. Aintabli (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the only thing wrong that I did was calling him lazy and dumb. The sentence containing the word idiot was posted by accident. I wanted to delete it before it was sent. In any case, I did accept the warning for using those words.HD86 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HD86, you're actually edit warring to add unsourced content and then arguing on the talk page that other editors should clean up your sloppy work. And then following that up with a statement that you've added refs before but refuse to this time because you're being told to. There are seriously better things for all of us to spend our time on than this. Schazjmd (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It took 13 days, several warnings, and a report at ANI for HD86 to admit fault for the most obvious of a series of personal attacks, which are only a portion of the problem. However, right after their comment above, HD86 left another personal attack on Talk:Aleppo that disputing editors just can't respect the efforts of others. They think of themselves as bosses. Aintabli (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HD86 has become a WP:TIMESINK. HD86, instead of supplying a reference(which would have cost them 1 edit), has made over 12 edits insulting fellow editors, expecting other editors to provide a source for their edit, and then making a false statement of how 3 editors have reverted their edit on Aleppo! I'm unconvinced they understand how to contribute to a community encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This behavior pretty straightforwardly violates our policies prohibiting personal attacks and obliging civility. That HD86 persisted with incivility toward editors even after posting in here at ANI, as Aintabli links above, is discouraging. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems as though User:HD86 is not familiar with how Wikipedia works. He has made up an alternate policy in his own mind and and is insisting that others follow his made-up policy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston, can you care to elaborate? What is exactly the thing that I said which made you say that? You think the Wikipedia rules allow you to automatically delete unreferenced material? I remember that they had that system on the Arabic Wikipedia but not the English one.HD86 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All people on Wikipedia must learn to respect the efforts of others. Everybody's time is valuable. When someone spends time to contribute something to an article, you can't erase their contribution without some collaborative, due process. This is rude and incompatible with the notion of Wikipedia being a collaborative work. A person who does that shouldn't be on Wikipedia in my opinion. Perhaps you should create a blog where you can have full control.

    As part of respecting other people's work, you must learn to build on other people's work. If you see that a citation is missing, you should add the citation yourself instead of starting an edit war and then accusing the original contributer of being the reason behind the edit war. It is natural for the original contributer to get upset in this case when they see that their contribution is being met with hostility by people acting like they own the article or like they have authority over other people.

    There are cases where the lack of citation is a genuine issue, but in this case the "lack of citation" is obviously a fake issue that is being used to justify the arrogant and disrespectful behavior.

    After I made the first edit, I was met with unjustified hostility and disrespect. I feel that you are only looking for some made up reason to delete my contribution and possibly ban my account.

    I am kindly asking one of you to add the necessary citation from the Ali Janbulad page in order to prove your good faith and that you believe in collaborative work. I will thank that person for doing that.

    Perhaps Schazjmd (talk · contribs) can do it. Thanks in advance.HD86 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @EdJohnston, I need one of you to add the citation because that is the only way to prove that you respect my effort to improve the article and that you believe in collaborative work. If you can't prove that, then what is the point of me doing anything here? I am not here to fight with people who don't like what I do.HD86 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If User:HD86 refuses to get the message, it may be time for an administrator to block his account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HD86, after personal attacks, edit warring, and general obstructionism, it seems to me that you are the one who needs to prove to the community that you intend to work collaboratively. You could do that by citing the source for the content you added. You might also apologize to the editors you've treated uncivilly and agree to comply with the norms of wikipedia going forward. Schazjmd (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I can accept a compromise. I will apologize to Aintabli for the personal attack and I will add the citation myself, but I need an apology from Aintabli and the other guy for repeatedly deleting my contribution, which was unwarranted to say the least.
    I also need a statement from one of the administrators that deleting my contribution was wrong. Otherwise, what is the point of me doing anything here if my contributions will be deleted? I am not here to fight with people.HD86 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit wouldn't have been reverted if you'd cited it. Editors often find unsourced information in articles and tag it as source-needed, but new content should indicate its source. If we allow all new unsourced content to remain unchallenged by nothing more than a tag, pretty soon articles will consist of more source-needed tags than refs. There are tons of source-needed tags in articles already that need to be addressed, we don't need to add to the backlog. There's an excuse for new editors who don't know the ins-and-outs of editing wikipedia, but you do know better; you just chose not to cite your edit. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd, I didn't cite it because the linked Wikipedia page had references and I expected someone (e.g. an administrator) to volunteer and add a citation from the other page. In my mind, this is the only acceptable thing that a user can do in this case. Using a source-needed tag would have been unwarranted and non-constructive editing.

    Several people, including administrators, have insisted to delete what I wrote despite knowing that it is correct and referenced in Wikipedia itself.

    To me, this is not constructive editing but a message to me saying that people here don't appreciate my contribution.

    Since I feel I am unwelcome, I won't be active here.HD86 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Obstructing the core policies of Wikipedia by forcing reciprocal apology appears to avoid recognizing the problems that have been repeatedly underlined here: incivility, edit-warring, bad-faith, etc. I don't need a long overdue apology that HD86 wants to trade with one for a simple revert, long after 6 different editors pointed out the wrongdoing multiple times each. It is also worrying that HD86 expects an apology from Wikaviani but did not mention an apology for them, who they accused of bossy behavior that has to do only with ego and arrogance among countless other personal attacks both here and on Talk:Aleppo. I believe the very last solution should be to just cite their own addition with a source that actually verifies it and nothing else. Aintabli (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe HD86 is assuming bad faith once again. Their comment above is ornamented with words such as kindly, but they have again accused others of arrogant and disrespectful behavior, another personal attack among many in the comment above. They are also now asking Schazjmd, another editor (4th this time!), to take responsibility for their own additions. Aintabli (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I wanted to file a report about HD86 but Aintabli was faster than me. Despite having been editing here for more than a decade, HD86 seems to ignore our guidelines and keeps edit warring against multiple experienced editors, attacking almost every user they disagree with and so on .... Apologies from them might be a good start, but let's be clear about it, I won't apology for reverting unsourced additions. To be honest, this kind of editors waste the community's time and I'm not convinced they're improving this project.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive and offensive edits by User: 163.5.175.192[edit]

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


    Resolved
     – /24 blocked for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive and offensive edits and reverts made by User: 163.5.175.192. Have a look at the edits made by them [278]. This looks like possible sock of User: Wayfarer Pacifist who was also involved in similar edit warring and multiple reverts. Uzumaki787 (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible socks of User: Wayfarer Pacifist are continuously reverting edits in the Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire page and personally attacking editors. Also similar reverts are made in pages linked to Salaar. Admins can you have a look at this. Uzumaki787 (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked 163.5.175.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Behavior by User:Forward.ops[edit]

    I'm here to start a discussion about user @Forward.ops for two reasons. First reason is his Uncivility in a discussion over here:[279]. Second reason is that he unexplainably removed the "page needed" templates here:[280] and here[281] . Olek Novy (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple issues relating to Liverpool and Liverpool City Region[edit]

    I recently nominated an article for deletion - due to formatting problems it was closed and resubmitted by another editor . The article tried to argue that the word 'Liverpolitan' was the accepted demonym for people from Liverpool or the Liverpool City Region. I immediately knew this to be untrue, and so it was no surprise to see that the article (though well written and formatted) was completely unsupported by its many references, contradicted even. The consensus in the AfD agreed with this, with many editors taking time to dissect each reference thoroughly. The admin's decision was to redirect the term Liverpolitan to Liverpool#Demonyms_and_identity.

    Throughout the discussion, the editor of the article, Liverpolitan1980 continued making edits to the article (though these did not address the issues) and they were very resistant to any criticism. While or before the article was blanked and redirected, they moved much of the content to Liverpool and Liverpool City Region and it still contains many of the same problems (mostly WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE) that had been brought up in the AfD discussions.

    They also reported me during and after the process to WP:ANI and WP:AN, simply because they disagreed with my contributions - no action was taken against me. In the AN report they said they were deleting their account and so the matter was closed. They then made another report against me for posting their personal information. While I did not explicitly do this, I did make an allusion to a WP:COI I had become aware of because I had seen forum posts where a person had announced they had created the Liverpolitan Wikipedia article and were also the subject of at least three of the references used to support their arguments. It seems that for many years a person has been trying (unsuccessfully) to get the word into common use, this has been reported on in the media, and they are now using Wikipedia in a way which I believe contravenes the policies WP:PROMO and WP:FORUM, as well as the WP:COI guidelines.

    As this user is apparently no longer active, I have not tried to resolve this dispute on their talk page. However, today two not logged in users have been trying to get some of Liverpolitan1980's content reinstated on the Talk:Liverpool page for the protected Liverpool article. They deny being the same person despite having the same combative style. I suspect this is WP:SOCK.

    I think there is both an issue of WP:NOT and also poor conduct/WP:HARRASS towards me relating to the vexatious reports and incessant replies to my posts with increasingly strange ad hominem attacks. While I enjoy friendly debate, this is having a very detrimental and time consuming effect on my Wikipedia experience.

    Orange sticker (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Full disclosure - I am Liverpolitan1980's friend and have followed the debate from the very beginning. He has now left the platform through feeling utterly harrassed by you in particular Orange sticker. He was made aware that you attempted to out his real life identity in talk pages - which is usually an instant block according to Wiki guidance. You were lucky just to get a warning. He made the article you mentioned in good faith and made arguments to keep that article in the best way he could. Some of the feedback acknowledged the merits of expanding on the demonym. When the information was being disputed - he made good faith efforts to incorporate some information in to the Liverpool and city region articles as was encouraged in the AfD discussion. You encouraged that yourself. There has been no attempt to harrass you but to challenge your relentless efforts to disaparage anyone that might choose to adopt the Liverpolitan demonym - both on and off wiki - and to disparage his efforts to contribute to the encyclopedia. You have made this whole thing very very personal and would simply not let things go. This is not sock puppetry and nor is meat puppetry. I am free to contribute to this platform as a separate individual. Amd that is why I am fully disclosing so you are not able to yet again - cause drama to disparage a former contributor. The criticism I have made to you on the Liverpool talk page can either be taken or not taken. I feel it is completely valid. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm obviously involved in the discussions that have taken place so far and have been constantly, repeatably, civil in all cases. I have re-iterated wikipedia policies, and stressed that they are what is important to deciding the content of any article. I am happy to extend to Liverpolitan1980 that he made his original Liverpolitan Identity article in good faith. Utimately, following the AFD this article was rejected and it was made clear that Liverpolitan as a term was FRINGE, and that the content as written was OR / SYNTH. I gave the editor over a week after they added the content to the Liverpool and Liverpool City Region and following the closure of the AFD to handle the issues as mentioned on the AFD by other editors, but they instead chose to start another argument with Orange Sticker on the talk page that culminated in them "Leaving". The two new IP's have subsequently picked up the stick, with 94.14.184.212 all but admitting as a friend of Liverpolitan that they are a Meatpuppet. 94.14.184.212 has had the sources explained at length but instead of presenting sources to support the inclusion of the wording has resorted to casting aspersions about what I would or wouldn't do on articles X, Y, Z and instructing me how to edit, all while berating me for my "bias". I can't even work out what they are on about in some cases, but basic competency appears to be an issue along with the general uncivility. There are obvious potential sock issues at play, and Liverpolitan1980 is not this users first account. Koncorde (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, Liverpolitan1980 has a prior account and has never tried to hide that. That account has been retired and is labelled as such on the profile - and has never been used since its retirement. Wiki contributors are free to do that - again that is yet another attempt to damage a person's reputation. No intention to hide anything there on his part or my part. As regards my comments about your bias on the Liverpool talk page. You are obviously both intelligent people. I am sure by now that you know the difference between the Liverpool city region combined authority, the city region and Merseyside. What I have found curious is Orange sticker's encouragement for Liverpolitan1980 to incorporate some of his content in to the Liverpool city region account only for then to advocate for its merger with another - completely separate article. That makes absolutely no sense other than to make it increasingly difficult for someone to contribute in good faith. It simply makes no sense other than to cause confusion and tension between editors. And you have been actively involved with that as well as also joining in on the speculation of my friend's indentity - again you have been warned. You can call it what you like - no one is deceiving anyone here. I have fully disclosed myself as a friend. What is important are of course the policies. But we are not discussing content here - unless you want to. My input here is obviously concerned with my friend's former account being tagged. Brought in to drama again when he has left the site. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "but instead of presenting sources to support the inclusion of the wording"
      You were presented with sources and then complained that they were a laundry list that you didn't want in the first place. In other words, when presented with evidence you spat them out and complained that you didn't even want them in the first place. I am not being uncivil to you but this is obviously a very difficult position to put someone in and is not cohesive to a meaningful discussion. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I tried to intercede on the LCR page as a disinterested party and made some minor revisions, cleaning up the demonym section to exclude much of the cruft. But it does honestly seem like these two editors have some form of off-wiki personal animosity that is driving this continued dispute. An SPI might be warranted for the IP associated with Liverpolitan1980 - and if it is, in fact, a different editor's account they should be cautioned regarding WP:MEATPUPPETRY - otherwise we're faced with the challenge of how to establish a mutual Iban when one party has loudly quit Wikipedia but is still not fully gone. Simonm223 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This could very very easily just go away. I have asked for minor edits to be made which I feel are fair. I have done this through observation of the debate. There is no need to involve my friend - he has left the site through feeling utterly harrassed. Let me stress again - minor edits are being requested - not an opening to old grudged on or off wiki. I have no interest in them and have no full knowledge of that in any case. I am not interested. I am here because this report has been filed. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Simonm223 From what I can see, you made a good edit to the LCR page. I don't think this dispute really concerns you. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Coming to Wikipedia to pick up for a friend upset about an edit conflict is WP:MEATPUPPETRY and ultimately just stirs up petty drama. An edit conflict over a nickname has led to all this silliness. I decided to become involved explicitly because I am entirely neutral to the conflict and figured I could reasonably assess sources. Yet here we are. Again. I would encourage all parties to seriously calm down self-reflect a bit. And I would suggest that SPIs who are only interested in one very niche topic and in stirring up extensive, loud, drama should ask whether they should really be editing Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There are many things which are frowned upon on the encyclopedia I believe. I know your edit was good faith. I have seen it. It is also not appreciated to see my friend's reputation dragged through the mud or his identity speculated on or his contributions - old and new - accused as anything other than the best of faith. Those that do that must expect their own contributions to be called in to question. You are absolutely right, I think the whole situation is just an awful situation of people not seeing eye to eye and maybe some very deep seated differences in viewpoints which seem intractable. I have certainly not come here to violate a policy. I came here to make my own mind up. My friend is in no way encouraged me to do so. I find the whole situation tragic to be honest. I certainly do not advocate for everything he did to come back either but I have questioned one or two edits on the Liverpool page. That is all. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have been told what the issue is, in detail, as was Liverpolitan - and have chose instead to attack and harass other users. Koncorde (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive behaviour by ExpertPrime at History of the chair[edit]

    User was previously blocked from editing History of the chair due to edit warring, removal of content without consensus and gross misuse of WP:NONAZIS in the edit summary. See discussion on user's talk page:

    [282]

    Since the expiry of their block, they have resumed this behaviour and continue to restore versions of that page with the content removed:

    [283]

    [284]

    When warned not to revert they are simply removing the warnings from their talk page:

    [285]

    [286] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0E:CB01:10:1A00:146C:3E24:4E5C:2A09 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked by 331dot for 2 weeks for edit warring. --Yamla (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    License fee demands for Diliff’s images[edit]

    User talk:Diliff has multiple notes from users of his Commons images which all report contacts from copyright enforcement entities asking for fees to resolve their use of the CC-BY images. These inquiries extend into at least one archive, going back to 2019. As far as I can tell, Diliff has never responded on his Talk page to confirm or disavow the fee requests made in his name. Looking at the descriptions of the images in Commons, each includes a link to Diliff’s Talk page here on Wikipedia for any questions about the use of the image. It us not clear whether Diliff is a victim of what amounts to extortion of those using his images or if he is participating in some way, as he has never replied to the Talk page inquiries. Either way, it seems the community should look into what appears to be misuse of Wikipedia and Commons for commercial, moneymaking purposes. Geoff | Who, me? 21:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is being discussed over at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Diliff and in my opinion should be handled there rather than on en.wikipedia, as the images were uploaded there. --Yamla (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also over at Commons:Village_pump#Guidance_re_possible_copyleft_trolling. Interesting case, for those who follow copyright and licensing. --Yamla (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we get a list of those files that are in use here? Geardona (talk to me?) 23:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The complete list of Diliff's files can be seen near the top of commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff. I don't know how to tell quickly how many of these files are actually in use on any of our wikis. You could always look at them one at a time… EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    quarry:query/81717. —Cryptic 04:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP hopper[edit]

    An IP hopper is constantly appearing at the Rape of males article attempting to add the {{fringe}} and {{fringe theories}} templates numerous times. I noticed them today since I reverted them. But these edits are clearly disruptive and date back to at least late 2022. Is there something that should be done to prevent this? Maybe increasing the article's protection level should do the trick, but I'm not quite sure. I would appreciate some feedback. Thank you. CycloneYoris talk! 23:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protected indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we list that at CTOPS? Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon looking at the history of this IP hopper, I have found an almost uninterrupted history of similar blatant POV edit warring in other articles within the GENSEX topic area, almost all invariably sounding the same theme of contesting that any sort of hardship for males exists, for almost the last four years. Many of the IPs used to make those edits have been blocked, some more than once.
    I have therefore blocked the Belarus-based 176.60.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for a year, and will log this at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    COI and possible legal threats at Bennett S. LeBow (BLP)[edit]

    Hi all, I've done my best to summarize the situation in a concise manner here. Apologies for any errors. Any guidance is appreciated.

    Summary: For years, IP editors and new editors have continually removed content from Bennett S. LeBow, often related to his involvement in cigarette manufacturing and his political activity. Some of these editors have indicated that they have a relationship with the article subject. These removals have been reverted by various users, including Algyx0262 (talk · contribs). On 16 March, Jlebow112 (talk · contribs) removed content related to LeBow's business activity, personal life, and reported connection to Vadim Rabinovich. Reverts ensued, as did additional sourcing/expansion (by me). Jlebow made comments that were perceived as legal threats, though they said they were not making legal threats. Algyx removed the contested content, I reverted, they reverted again. See diffs below.

    Article history

    16 March

    • Series of removals by Jlebow112 (talk · contribs). Edit summary Bennett LeBow does not wish this to be inserted in his Bio. [287]

    20 March

    25 March

    • Revert by IP user. Edit summary Mr LeBow believes this is NOT accurate so please remove [289]
    • Revert by Boyinaroom (talk · contribs) using WP:HG. [290]

    27 March

    • Removal by Jlebow112. [291]
    • Revert by C.Fred (talk · contribs). Edit summary restore sourced material [292]
    • Revert by Wracking (talk · contribs) (me). Edit summary Further revert of unexplained removals [293]

    29 March

    • Removal by Jlebow112. Edit summary Bennett LeBow never had a business with this man and never built a hotel. [294]
    • Revert by Algyx0262. [295]
    • Copy edit by Algyx062. [296]
    • Series of edits (expansion and copy edits) by Wracking. [297]

    2 April

    3 April

    • Removal by Algyx0262. Edit summary Taken down by request of subject [300]
    • Revert by Wracking. Edit summary WP:COI removal of info w/ reliable sources. Discuss on talk page. [301]
    • Revert by Algyx0262. Edit summary Taken down at user request, not a major portion of the biography when taken as a whole [302]
    Talk pages

    User talk:Jlebow112 permalink. See history for full context; I will give some highlights related to the possible legal threat.

    • 27 March: C.Fred warned Jlebow112 for removing content [303].
    • 30 March: IP user comments; message includes Would you like to speak to Mr LeBow's attorney? Can we arrange a call with the Kasowitz law firm as soon as possible so you are assured that he never had such an affiliation with him in any potential business venture. [304]
    • 2 April: C.Fred responds; message includes Regarding the mention of a law firm, please review no legal threats before mentioning them again. [305]
      • C.Fred also warned IP user on their talk page for making legal threats [306]
    • 2 April: IP user responds; message includes That was not a threat. [307]

    User talk:Wracking permalink (3 April)

    • Algyx0262 comments on my talk page following my revert of their removal; writes Lebow is suggesting legal action. I say it is hardly worth keeping the Rabinovich material at this point since this is only one relatively minor portion of a fairly detailed biography. It is just not worth it.
    • I respond, telling them to report legal threats and to discuss at the article talk page [308]
    • Algyx0262 responds; mentions discussion at Jlebow112 and that they do not know where to report legal threats [309]

    Talk:Bennett S. LeBow permalink (3 April)

    • Following my reply on my talk page, Algyx0262 writes Lebow is suggesting legal action. I say it is hardly worth keeping the Rabinovich material at this point since this is only one relatively minor portion of a fairly detailed biography. It is just not worth it. [310]

    Best, Wracking talk! 04:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not denying that there might be a COI issue here but when I read those talk page messages, it sounds like Jlebow112 is suggesting referring to an attorney who can support the claims in the article and his editing decisions, not that he intends to sue Wikipedia or any of its editors. But that's how I read his two comments. They didn't seem like threats, they sounded like he thought the legal firm would provide evidence for the spin he wants in the article or the point he's trying to make. But I might be wrong here. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I did not take IP's comments as legal threats, and interpreted them in the same way you describe. (Also on the topic of COI, IP says they are LeBow's wife [311](apologies if I missed this diff in my first post; I was doing my best to make a concise timeline)) Wracking talk! 07:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Untitled740 Tag-bombing football articles despite talk page warnings[edit]

    This user went through a spree of tag-bombing football articles in February and January, and was warned about it on their talk-page by @Sgubaldo:, @Govvy:, @Jfire: and @Syvä-äksy:.

    I recently went through the tags they left on Inter Milan, which was an hour and a half's work which resulted in only a tiny improvement in the text (with the exception of the removal of the tags, which was a considerable improvement). Most of the valid tags (and most were not valid) could easily have been avoided by the user simply changing the text themselves. To be fair, their edits on Inter predate the warning, however, they edited Tranmere Rovers and Bristol Rovers after the above linked discussion, with even worse consequences, including many entirely incorrect "close paraphrase" tags.

    The user has not edited a football page for a month, but I would ask for a six month tban from football articles, as their edits on this topic create massive amounts of work for others. Football articles are edited very regularly during the season, so reverts are rarely possible. --Boynamedsue (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Boynamedsue, requests like this for a topic ban generally require substantial evidence provided of disruption. Do you have diffs of this occurring? Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI