Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Afghan.Records

Afghan.Records (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the second time I'm reporting Afghan.Records here (the last being this one with lots of diffs [1], which I ended up closing after Afghan.Records got blocked for edit warring after getting reported by another user [2]).

This is the short version of the previous report; Afghan.Records engages in source misrepresentation, pov pushing and using poor sources.

The first edit in an article after their block for edit warring expired was literally another revert which changed a lot more than their edit summary indicated [3]. And now they're continuing the source misrepresentation [4], pov pushing [5] and use of poor sources.

Afghan.Records has no issue with removing poorly sourced information that clashes with their opinion [6], but apparently it's okay for them to add poor sources themselves [7] (citations from 1873 and 1747.. not the first time they've done this with the same poor sources, see the afromentioned ANI report). And despite all this, they still seem to believe that their edits were right all along, as seen in this comment they just made where they also randomly accused me of "propaganda" and "false information" without even pinging me, [8].

Also, their talk page is full of warnings by me and other users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say Afghan.Records is WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Let's wait for the response from Afghan.Records. I am in support of a WP:NOTHERE block. Lorstaking (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it seems like Afghan.Records is going to ignore this ANI report too. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I came across this edit earlier while going through recent changes. I'm neither interested in nor knowledgeable enough regarding the subject to get into reverting edits adding sources there. Notwithstanding, their history of not responding to their own talk page messages, behavior at article talk pages (and this lovely topic), plus their lack of civility when interacting with other editors (not just HistoryofIran) are enough for me to say they're WP:NOTHERE at all. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 06:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

From looking at the entire summary of their edits:

• They've been blocked twice - once in 2023 for a battleground mentality (1 week), and a more recent AE block for edit warring (1 month)
• They've made two edits to the user talk namespace - EVER. Out of 172 edits, only 2 have been to edit their talk page (removing some notices), which tells me that they are aware their behavior is in some way problematic
• While ~25% of their edits are to the talk namespace, most of these have been to argue with other editors about how their sources are correct and any other source is incorrect (the truth of which I can't verify, but judging by the amount of pushback they've gotten from multiple editors, it's not looking fantastic). See this mess of a discussion.

It looks like they may reply, though, judging by this comment. They've been informed of the ANI thread on their talk page and now at the article's talk page. At this point it may be a case of WP:IDHT & WP:NOTHERE. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I normally would say "they're on mobile, everyone knows communication can be buggy", but the fact that they've removed messages on their talk page prior tells me that they know it's there, and they've definitely seen more than just those removed messages there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 22:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No, they're definitely aware of this thread. I've engaged with them at Talk:Khalji dynasty about it here. Note their responses when I challenged them about not responding here: Nothing more than accusation. I provided direct links for what I was accused of “miss representing” but they couldn’t defend their end. I did. and How do I reply to it? And what am I being accused of specifically? The gaps in knowledge between me and other editors make it look like I am wrong but they don’t know any better. It sounds like they've reckoned it's best for them not to engage. Looking at that and their edits, they seem to be clearly POV WP:NOTHERE. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Blocks, talk page messages, and even the ANI prior made no difference. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Its been 3 days, they are still editing and choose not to respond here. As an uninvolved editor- I have to wonder why? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Textbook WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE, and nationalistic POV-pushing. His behavior proves he is not interested in collaboration. I support indef block. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Still editing and not responding. Should be NOTHERE blocked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

An example. Take a look at Bactria: Revision history. Just restored his edits[9], ignored other editors' concerns, and started edit warring again. His behavior on Bactria was one of the reasons he got blocked in January (I guess). Someone better reviews his edits since 18 February. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As a quick reply to this main thread: is Special:Diff/1213185936 in reference to an edit they made themselves, or is it potentially some socking? Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me, this wasn't the clearest and editing an individual message in source is near impossible on my phone.

Is this in reference to an edit he made, that the other editor is attempting to change? Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I asked myself the same question about socking when I replied to Afghan.Records.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Judging by the comment they made just now, Afghan.Records clearly doesn't care about this report. They probably wrote this due to their conversation with DeCausa; Please don’t tell me “your API report says this”. "API" is no doubt a misspelling of ANI. Afghan.Records is indeed WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

UA0Volodymyr continuing to disregard topic ban

On the behavior of @UA0Volodymyr: This user's behavior was discussed at this noticeboard last month. UA0Volodymyr is topic banned from making edits—on any page—that are related to Disputes between the countries Russia and Ukraine, both present and historical, broadly construed and Disputes involving the ethnic identity of particular individuals where it is disputed whether their ethnicity is Ukrainian, broadly construed. Last month, at issue were edits to the Rosa Luxemburg article to add material about claims about the existence of a Ukraininan nation in relation to Luxemburg's work The Russian Revolution.

Despite UA0Volodymyr writing in the previous ANI thread that these actions may have constituted a violation of the topic ban (though the hedging of "may" was troubling) and making a promise to not do such actions anymore as well as professing having lost all interest to the Rosa Luxemburg article, UA0Volodymyr has since resumed editing pages that fall under the broadly construed topic bans:

• Edit at Iryna Farion, an article about a scholar whose notability per the page has a lot to do with her views of whether certain Russian-speaking units are really Ukrainian.
• Edit at New People (political party), an article about a party that has proclaimed its support for the invasion by Russia of Ukraine.
• Multiple edits (another) at Black Hundreds, an article about a Russian movement notable for anti-Ukrainian sentiment
• Edit at Bistra, Maramureș, a location whose economy (specifically train use) has explicitly in the article been affected/precipitated by the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
• Edit to Rosa Luxemburg, the article UA0Volodymyr claimed to have lost interest in.

I was informed of the contributions to the Luxemburg article by Pitsarotta, who described the Luxemburg contribution as being innocuous but was worried it could be a prelude to further disruptive edits. Because UA0Volodymyr is under a broadly construed topic ban, I thought it wise to double check and discovered these other edits. The terms of the topic ban are to avoid editing any pages that related to the broadly construed topics, whatever of the content of UA0Volodymyr's edits. And per WP:BMB, the measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

UA0Volodymyr has once again demonstrated they will not abide by the topic ban. The indefinite block that was lifted on the condition of abiding the topic bans should be reimposed.

Pinging remaining users involved in the previous noticeboard discussion: @LegalSmeagolian:, @JBL:, @Seawolf35:, @Daniel:, @ActivelyDisinterested:, @HandThatFeeds:, @Chaotic Enby:, @Nil Einne:, @Lavalizard101:, @Ymblanter: P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty blatant violation of the topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

At first I was like "oh some of these topics seem only tangentially related" but then like yeah, I remembered the ban is one that is broadly construed. I support @P-Makoto's proposal as it seems that the user cannot comprehend what broadly construed means. I would say I don't find the Bistra, Maramureș edit to be in violation of the topic ban (I think even if broadly construed, preventing users from editing ANY European city/town/village that has in someway been impacted by the war is not fair as all of Europe has been impacted, and this was just one line in the article) but yeah the rest are pretty blatant. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Support indef ban, because obviously. Considering they've already been blocked for a TBAN violation, and their ongoing behaviour, there's no reasonable options other than an indef ban. I find it very unlikely there will be any real opposition to this, so the should be blocked ideally sooner than later. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting, looking at the block log of the user:

1. they were initially indeffed by HJ Mitchell on 27 October 2023,
2. then unblocked by Red-tailed hawk on 10 January 2024 under the conditions of a 1RR restriction and two topic bans,
3. and then on 26 January 2024 they were blocked 1 week by Maxim (a Checkuser) for email abuse and topic ban violations.

So yeah, they have been blocked once for TBAN violations before. I support the indef block proposal here, given this previous 1-week block which has failed to get this user's attention regarding their unblock condition violations. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I remember seeing his name at several noticeboards at the same time a few months ago. That he was indeffed but somehow managed to have that replaced with a topic ban, only for him to violate it repeatedly and send abuse privately to other users, should be a sign that he is plainly incapable of abiding by the rules. I think he's been given enough rope to hang himself, and he has, many times over. Support reinstating the indefinite block. Ostalgia (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: For full transparency, while rereading the topic ban and my OP, I wondered a bit at why I tried to concisely quote in a way that was... basically the same length as the original quote. I have edited my OP on this thread to more straightforwardly quote the topic ban without breaking up the quote as much. I continue to support the indefinite block I proposed, because I think the broad construal of the topic bans holds (perhaps not for Bistra; fair enough on LegalSmeagolian's point). A broadly construed topic ban is not an invitation to see how nearly one can dance on the line. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• This saddens me since the edits look like constructive gnoming, and I felt an enormous sense of fatigue on seeing that the previous ANI discussion was about the OUN trope. I don't have the bandwidth to dig into PoV at the moment, and really, it doesn't matter. Nor does it matter that the Romanian railway edit is tangential. Sanctions are not suggestions, and this one said "broadly construed". I say this as someone who's been called a Ukrainian nationalist (hehe). May I suggest however that perhaps the leap from topic ban to indef is a bit harsh for constructive edits? If someone has evidence that they were actually *promoting* that politician, or any harm to Russian speakers, on the other hand, then I will support an indef with the rest of you. Right now I am thinking that a three to six month block would be fairer, escalating to an indef if necessary. But perhaps my opinion is skewed by recently seeing long-term egregious behavior of other editors get completely dismissed elsewhere. I really don't know, but those are my thoughts.Elinruby (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Clearly the message from the last ANI, which was slow to sink in then, has been forgotten. Like I did back then, I support a block for persistent topic ban violations. If it isn't indefinite, it has to be long enough to make clear that the next one will be. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• I was concerned in the last discussion that UA0Volodymyr didn't understand their topic ban or what "broadly construed" entailed. None of the diffs above are problematic in themselves, but they are covered by UA0Volodymyr topic ban. Either UA0Volodymyr still doesn't understand their topic ban or they are trying to edit around it, either way that's a problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't disagree with either you or Daniel. The OUN is a hot button issue, but it doesn't matter at this point. These edits are in fact topic ban violations.

For the record, I don't believe I have ever encountered this editor, so I can't assess whether there is PoV pushing without a lot more digging than I can do right now. I *will* mention the the party of Regions that the politician is in conflict with is associated with the oligarchs who ran the country before the Revolution of Dignity, but I can't defend getting anyone arrested by the Russians. None of that is relevant to whether she should or should not have an article anyway or what should be in her infobox. I am not myself detecting any PoV pushing from these edits, is all I am saying. If that *were* going on after a topic ban, that would certainly be egregious enough for an indef, and I am not saying it's not, just that I don't right now see it.

I realized after I wrote the above that they got the topic ban as a condition of their unblock, so maybe they have used up their rope, I dunno. I am just asking the question. Also, there's also a war on in Ukraine that may be affecting people they know even if they are safe themself, so it's hard to say why they haven't responded yet. That's my best attempt at objectivity, and yes, for the record, I've been a vocal critic of the war, if that affects the weight to give this opinion. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I realized after I wrote the above that they got the topic ban as a condition of their unblock, so maybe they have used up their rope

That's my stance. Their block was revoked on the condition that they stayed away from this topic entirely. And they've violated that agreement multiple times, so an indef seems necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't mention what should happen now, only my disappointment that this seemed inevitable and have proven so. I don't know if this is a language issue, but UA0Volodymyr seems unable to understand the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

i probably shouldn't opine on what should happen either if I can't take the time to review what happened. But in case it's useful context, anything involving the OUN is an extremely toxic topic. Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the edits themselves aren't problematic, and most of them aren't immediately related, but "broadly construed" they're still a breach of the topic ban. Don't think an indef is anything useful here, but a reminder and clarification of the scope of their topic ban is definitely called for. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby The user was previously informed about their TBAN violations in early February, and the user was also blocked for one week on 26 January 2024 for a previous instance of TBAN violations, so honestly, I don't think a warning let alone a short block is going to work here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I was there for the last one, but didn't know about all the previous history. Yeah, a longer block seems like it makes sense here. I also feel like broadly construed is vague by nature, and that topic bans should be made more specific (i.e. clarifying that unrelated articles on related pages still count, and defining the scope more precisely if possible). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are even talking about. My edits neither were about the Russo-Ukrainian conflict or were problematic. The topic ban is on the Russo-Ukrainian conflicts, not on everything related to Russia or Ukraine. In the Iryna Farion article, I've just added a characteristic of her as a politician (and nothing related to the Russo-Ukrainian was); in the New People (political party), I've marked that the primary source is not a reliable one; in the Black Hundreds, I've just added some references and links (none of them weren't related to the Ukrainians in the Russian Empire or the Ukrainian 1917–1921 revolution); in Rosa Luxemburg, I've changed one punctuation symbol and one word; I didn't know anything about Bistra when I was editing it. I don't know what the purpose of your action is, but if you think that Wikipedia is a place where you can monitor every action of the User and to accuse him of what you think is an any violation of the standard rules, which is not what Wikipedia is. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

well yeah they can monitor you, anyone can. And you need to read then ask questions about the broadly construed part, because as someone who is if anything biased in your favor I have to agree that you violated that. Hopefully someone will oblige us with a link.Elinruby (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

check out the examples at Wikipedia:TBAN. That Romanian village does mention the war in Ukraine. I am not an admin so I will butt out now that you are here to speak for yourself but my advice is that you describe the problem yourself with these edits based on that link. Elinruby (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

[10]--Ymblanter (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. If UA0Volodymyr understood why these edits violated the broadly construed terms of the topic ban—if they, as Elinruby suggested, could describe the problem yourself with these edits based on WP:TBAN—I would be more open to Chaotic Enby's suggestion that this close with a reminder and clarification of the scope of their topic ban. But I lack optimism that UA0Volodymyr will do so. UA0Volodymyr didn't last time (except begrudgingly, and hedgingly) and hasn't this time. The last ANI thread closed with UA0Volodymyr apologizing (albeit seemingly begrudgingly) after being reminded of the scope of the topic ban, with no further action. In the absence of a prompt, overt, and demonstrably comprehending acknowledgment of the topic ban's violation, I think it would be shortsighted to end this thread the same way. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Well. They do need to be able to recognize a clue when it is dropped on their head from a great height. I was expecting questions about now. My thinking is still that we just don't know what's going on RL but the silence here is making me regret speaking up. Give it a little more time? If this starts to look more and more like WP:ANI flu like it does right now, then a warning should yes, be taken off the table and the length of the block should depend in how many other life preservers they have already ignored. Based on Ymblanter's link it looks like several. Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm very confused by your comment, they have already replied and you have replied to them (before making this comment) so it's not a case of ANI flu. UA0Volodymyr reply of I don't understand what you are even talking about, shows as I feared that they do not understand the nature of their topic ban (and seems unable to get the point). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I see what Elinruby means about this looking "like" WP:ANI; there was some hope, on Elinruby's part, that UA0Volodymyr would read the WP:TBAN link provided further up in the thread and get it (or at least grapple with it). And UA0Volodymyr participated much more actively in the previous ANI thread (although just as un-generatively). Instead of facing the topic ban's terms, UA0Volodymyr is suddenly not posting at all.

In any case, we agree that UA0Volodymyr seems not to understand the terms of the topic ban. My own thinking is increasingly that we're well past the realm of warnings. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep. My attempt to explain it to them did not include a ping, granted, but they know this thread exists. I linked to what they need to understand and answer to so if they can't see the problem I have to agree that that's a problem.

Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the combination of UA0Volodymyr's possible confusion about the extent of "broadly construed" related to disputes between the two countries, and the fact that there doesn't appear to be any secondary vandalism, how would people feel if, instead of an indefinite block, the topic ban was extended to Russia and Ukraine, broadly construed? This would remove a good bit of the ambiguity, and if they continued to violate the topic ban, there would be a great deal less uncertainty about whether the editor really understands the scope? Failing this, I would support an indefinite block rather than a warning. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Not inherently opposed. Just not going to argue myself for another chance for someone who isn't bothering to take it. There seems to be some attitude as a compounding factor so maybe escalation really is called for. If we go this route however, ok, that would be an escalation, but I suggest really clear and careful wording to enunciate that this means anything to do with Ukraine, at all, anything to do with Russia, at all, anything to do with Galicia, OUN, volunteer units, Cossacks, or any hetman, at all.Those are likely pitfalls. To be clear, it doesn't matter what they or I think of the original editing restriction, which I still have not found time to read. It existed, and they were responsible for asking questions if they had them. And they did, in fact, ask about a famine in the Soviet Union. At this point I can't imagine that other editors who have commented here would accept anything but an escalation, and I myself think they need to show they can color inside the lines,which their silence here is putting in doubt.Elinruby (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, UA0Volodymyr's contributions to topic-banned areas have been, for the most part, constructive and uncontroversial edits. But then, if we look back to the original post, it mentions WP:BMB and how good edits are still prohibited when an editor is banned.

Looking at the user's talk page, the top thread "Reply to your email" does seem to indicate awareness of their topic ban, or at least they were aware of it back then in 11th January – as they were asking questions about the scope of their topic ban. And now here we are, where the user is editing in these topic areas seemingly without regard for the topic ban. So I feel like ignorance is at play here rather than a difficulty of understanding.

So here's a timeline. User was unblocked on 10 Jan with TBAN and 1RR restrictions. On 11 Jan they sent an email to the unblocking admin asking for clarification about their TBAN, which the admin followed up on the user's talk page. On 26 Jan they were blocked 1-week for "abuse of email and violation of TBAN". On 7–11 Feb we had the previous ANI discussion about the user's TBAN violations.

It's as if they stopped caring about it from a certain time point onwards. If this editor was genuinely not understanding their topic ban areas and the meaning of "broadly construed", I would've expected them to ask the blocking admin (or other members of the community) another question, just like they did in 11 January.

As Elinruby has neatly put above, I'm not sure if it's going to be worth the time taking another chance here.

So overall, I oppose this alternate proposal and still stand by the original indef block restoration proposal here. This sounds like a good alternative and I wanted to give the editor one more shot here, but it's hard for me to support it when the user goes from asking questions about the ban when in doubt, to simply ignoring it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested seems troubled and I trust their judgment, so... I looked into the history here, not exhaustively, but pretty thoroughly, and, how to put this, there is some concerning stuff there. On several sides. This editor also uses revert more than I like but then I don't like revert at all. But as I already said, it doesn't matter. There is a bright line violation.

And yet, it is technical, and reported by an editor whose approach to the used is on display here so their concern about the disruptive power of punctuation looks rather disingenuous. Especially given the link in that diff.

I think that UA0Volodymyr does merit a sanction, but not an indef. I am trying to keep this short so I so I won't expand on that unless asked. The reporting editor also needs some careful scrutiny. This is warranted by the grave dancing alone but I'm unsure how involved they were themself in harassing this editor over a dispute about the meaning of a flag.

Everyone involved in these disputes needs to get a contentious topic alert if they don't already have one, because all of this is all about content and the Holocaust in Poland. It is a clash of nationalisms. But no matter what, we do still have a topic ban violation which UA0Volodymyr have said here did not happen. IDHT? I find it hard to believe they maliciously plotted to insert punctuation. A short block to get their attention. And give them time to grow a thicker skin. Elinruby (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said at the last ANI, and I've said here, I don't think that will work. The topic ban was a condition on removing an indef block, and they seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of that topic ban.
I too believe they could make useful contributions, and as I did in the last ANI thread I implore UA0Volodymyr to take part in this discussion and show that they understand the limits of their topic ban. Without that I don't see how the same issues aren't just going to keep happening. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody listened to them about that flag. They probably think there is no point, come to think of it. Which is unfortunate, because unless UA0Volodymyr speaks up here, the fact that "the conflicts" seems to equal "the current war" in their mind just won't matter, because that's the issue here. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Taking action

Declaring that I now consider myself involved, hence not taking any administrative action myself.

This is now the second thread about this editor that is in danger of just fizzling out. I would suggest that in both threads, there has been/is a rough consensus to indefinitely block (or at the very least, block for an extended period with an understanding that the next one is indefinite) this editor for their willful and persistent failure to comply with their editing restriction.

I would respectfully request that an administrator reviews this and the prior thread and looks to take some sort of action (whatever they consider to be consensus) to move this issue towards a resolution. It would be unfortunate if it was to be archived without action for a second time.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I'm the admin who originally indef'd Volodymyr and I consented to the unblock by Red-tailed hawk with the conditions he drew up) I'm not entirely convinced the edits in the OP are violations of the topic ban, much less that Volodymyr knew (or should have known) that they were violations. The scope of the restriction is Disputes between the countries Russia and Ukraine, both present and historical, broadly construed and Disputes involving the ethnic identity of particular individuals where it is disputed whether their ethnicity is Ukrainian, broadly construed. I can see how the article subjects are related to "disputes between Russia and Ukraine" but Volodymyr's edits aren't to anything substantively about such disputes so I can perfectly see why they might not think there's a problem with the edits. Given that, and that commenters above seem to acknowledge that the edits aren't disruptive in and of themselves, I don't feel inclined to reinstate the block, though I welcome RTH's opinion.

If we feel that these edits should be covered by the topic ban, we need to agree exactly what is covered and advise Volodymr of that so he has a chance to edit within the restrictions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to clarify/amend the topic ban, including something like or editing any pages related to the above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

since they have already encountered the third-rail topic of the OUN I suggest being really specific about whether that is or is not under the topic ban, as well as some other things like Slava Ukraini, Cossack deportations, invasions of hetmen, the annexation of Crimea, or the various historical wars of Ukraine with various incarnations of Poland and/or the Soviet Union. I don't know what to make of their silence and am not advocating a particular course of action at this point, but if the decision is to reword the topic ban, I'm offering that as a suggestion. Those are all sensitive topics that some might consider related. Your call whether to include them; I am just suggesting you be clear about whether you do. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and my apologies to you both if you already knew all this. Over and out Elinruby (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I do think a clarification on the TBAN may be helpful to third parties, but also I don’t know that expanding it where there hasn’t been disruption is warranted. This is not a general TBAN on all Russia and all Ukraine, but it was narrowly tailored towards the area of disruption. I understand that the slightly narrower scope may be confusing to people just looking in. Maybe changing the first TBAN to “Making edits relating to ethnic/national conflicts or disputes between Russians/Russia and Ukrainians/Ukraine” would have been better than the country-based TBAN.

The email abuse after the unblock is not a good sign. I probably would have just indef’d at that point, but that is stale.

I am very busy with life this week, so I write in haste. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am Volodymyr, not Volodymr. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@UA0Volodymyr I apologise. It's not a common name in English and apparently not an easy one to type on a phone. I meant no disrespect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be either a violation of the topic ban or is at least in very similar vain to the type of edits that led to the topic ban in first place. Volunteer Marek 01:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Mickievič was nether Russian or Ukrainian and there's not dispute in it. There's a dispute between Polish, Lithuanian and Belarusian ethnic identity and a topic ban doesn't cover it. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that's Polish / Lithuanian / Belarusian with a side of Russian thrown in (given that it's post partition and the subject was against Russian rule of Poland). The topic ban is only Ukrainian / Russian disputes, rather than the wider Eastern European topic area. I do wonder why, as it doesn't involve Ukraine, that Ukrainian spelling was added, but that's a content question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for off-topic, but Ukrainian spelling was added because Mickievič works have influence on Ukrainian literature, I've written about it in the article right now. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Cossde flouting Wikipedia policies

User Cossde added the verification needed tags to my reliable sources on Sri Lanka Civil Security Force simply because they are personally unable to access the sources. I explained to them in the talk page that Wiki policy advises against such action. They then replied that they do not trust me with the implication that I fabricated the entire content, against the Wiki policy that encourages users to WP:Assume good faith. After I removed those unnecessary tags with an explanation citing Wiki policy, Cossde once again re-added those tags stating they are unable to verify. After another user Oz346 reverted it after verifying the sources, Cossde once again reverted it stating they cannot trust this user as well. User Cossde violated several Wiki policies here and undermines the very basis that Wikipedia collaborative effort relies on. --- Petextrodon (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The subject in question is highly controversial. Both users Petextrodon and Oz346 appear to be engaged in WP:NAT editing with their contributions to Wikipedia proving to be limited to Tamil Elam related topics. Hence, citations provided by both need independent verification. Both are known to use either bias and primary sources. Cossde (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NAT refers to "promoting ideas, without reliable sources and due weight". This is nothing but a baseless accusation. The sources and information used here are reliable and of due weight. On the contrary, the above user Cossde is guilty of WP:NAT editing and has been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content relating to the crimes of the Sri Lankan government. See Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#OHCHR report regarding sexual violence and Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Peacekeeping sex scandal for recent examples. Without providing reliable sources to the contrary, his editing history fits the WP:NAT criteria of promoting the idea that a "Nation did not commit war crimes, massacres, crimes against humanity, genocide or other forms of violent actions" without reliable sources to back it up. Oz346 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oz346, for one who claims baseless accusations, you seem to be putting out a few against me. My concern is the excessive use of what appears to be WP:PRIMARY sources and unverified WP:RS on very controversial topics. Given the controversial nature of these topics, these are highly sensitive. Your refusal to give due weight have been highlighted in DRN. Furthermore on the charge of WP:NAT review of edit histories by an independent party may set the matter to reset. Cossde (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cossde You have no reasonable ground to suspect me of deliberately fabricating content from cited sources since you will not be able to provide one example from my edit history where I've done this. In contrast, you have a history of falsely accusing me of "nationalist editing" and "original research" simply for paraphrasing what's stated in the reliable source even without reading the source as you have done repeatedly here. I can also show that you in fact have deliberately distorted cited source as you have done here regarding UN report on "human shields", which you continued to re-add despite me and @Oz346 explaining to you repeatedly here, here and here that the cited source states just the opposite. I will let neutral observers decide who here is the untrustworthy one. --- Petextrodon (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Petextrodon, in your edit today [11] you added a citation that said "a series of riots and discriminatory government policies led to the founding of the a number of militant Tamil groups" to justify the sentence The LTTE fought to create an independent Tamil state called Tamil Eelam in the northeast of the island in response to violent persecution and discriminatory policies against Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government.. So please pardon me if I want to revalidate your citations. Cossde (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Cossde, even just based on your quote, that citation sounds like it does verify the content Petextrodon added. Also, citations aren't even generally supposed to be in leads, per MOS:LEAD. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. The above case and many others have spilt over to an extent that event lead content is cited. However if you look at the history of the edits it had already been cited. Petextrodon added this citation and changed the wording to this from The LTTE fought to create an independent Tamil state called Tamil Eelam in the northeast of the island, which it claimed was due to the continuous discrimination and violent persecution against Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan Government. Note the hyperlinks used. Petextrodon removed the link to Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war which covers the multiple reasons that lead to the formation of Tamil militancy as explained in the source, while his adds link to two articles Sinhala Only Act and the List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. The former is only one policy (and not directly attributed to in the source) and the citations says there were many, while the latter covers broader incidents of government violence (much of which have been added by Petextrodon based on Pro-Rebel and Primary sources) while the source says that several riots triggered it. In fact List of riots in Sri Lanka would be more appropriate than the latter, per the source. Yet it was not used. This the point I want to get across. Cossde (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Arguing content is not going to fly here. We're only looking at behavior and, so far, the behavioral evidence is that you're adding inappropriate tags to the article & edit warring to keep them in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Users Oz346 and Petextrodon has been involved in a multi-page edit war with user Cossde across multiple pages for example and have been heated. They have also engaged in the forcible inclusion of content by edit warring such as the continuous WP:TAGTEAMING to continuously re-add content that has been disputed for example 1 2 3 4. They also have a engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING for example, when I got involved in the recent dispute on February 26 and on the same day less than 24 hours of me entering the talk page of the dispute, they made complaints in WP:ANI claiming I was not replying in the talkpage. They also threw personal attacks against me for example Oz346 called me a WP:LIAR claiming I made up a section I quoted from WP:BURDEN which I was simply copy-pasting from the page. Petextrodon also made accusations of me being a WP:SOCK of Cossde despite being warned not to make accusations of sockpuppetry against Cossde in a similar dispute in 2023. This is a long running multi-page dispute although some have been solved through DRNs for example: DRN - UtoD 18:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link to last month's ANI report involving the same editors (archived, unresolved). Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a whole bunch of topic bans and/or interaction bans may be necessary. Everyone is running too hot right now and this is becoming a mess. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Look at my talk page. It's a shame that we don't yet include Sri Lanka under IPA; this is to me looking like the sort of thing that only ArbCom can resolve. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Last time I filed a complaint, the topic was diverted and submerged with issues not directly related to the topic at hand. I hope admins don't get sidetracked this time. --- Petextrodon (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears DRN alone isn't enough for user UtoD since they are repeating the same accusations from here on another complaint that doesn't even involve them]

What do you even mean with this? -UtoD 21:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, I just said that people are being too hot under the collar, and you jump straight in to heat things up more? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the attention of this discussion, fresh edit warring that has taken place in 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom which has an active DRN in progress. Petextrodon has removed cited content [12] without engaging in the talk page. Oz346 who at first appeared to be indifferent to the changes at first, has taken to the reverting, editing and to talk page after Petextrodon's edit with what appears to me as WP:OR. I don't wish to discuss content here since I have raised it in the DRN and the cited content addition was triggered as a result of addition of a new source and content from that source after an exiting source and supported content which I voluntarily removed as a result of an RSN raised by Petextrodon. I only wish to bring to attention the conduct of Petextrodon and Oz346, especially the comment made by Petextrodon [13], asking me "If you have comprehension difficulties", which I feel was uncalled for. Cossde (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Petextrodon for your clarification [14], however I don't feel that this was intended in good faith since this appears to be a recurring pattern [15], [16], [17]. Cossde (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Disputes

This is a content dispute over Sri Lanka, and the modern history of Sri Lanka includes a long civil war in a country divided along ethnic lines, preceded by British colonialism, preceded by many of the same conflicts as the history of India. I am planning in the near future to build a list of these disputes to ask the Arbitration Committee to expand the scope of the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan contentious topics designation. It is probably simpler to add another country (that sometimes has historically been part of an Indian Empire and sometimes has been independent) to the sanction than to create a new regimen. I will be noting this in future Sri Lanka disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've seen a bunch of small-scale disputes in the Sri Lanka topic area, but not much that would rise to the level of CTOP being needed. Not saying it doesn't exist, I just haven't seen it. If there is enough disruption in that topic area, then I agree that asking Arbcom to extend WP:ARBIPA to include Sri Lanka would be the simpler solution compared to having out own GS regime just for Sri Lanka. Historically, having GS areas that are closely related to Arbcom DS areas has caused unnecessary confusion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern about disruptive editing by a user in a dispute on MP4 file format

User:Svnpenn has demonstrated some disruptive editing during an edit war with me and discussions spanning several days on MP4 file format, ISO base media file format and Open file format and during an attempt at dispute resolution:

• Unfounded accusations of vandalism ([18], [19] and [20]) and bad faith [21], which I initially assumed were because the user describes themselves as novice
• Tendentious editing after learning from me and another editor (VQuakr) about Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
  • WP:USERGENERATED: [22] after [23]
  • WP:SYNTH: [24] and [25] after [26]
• Disregard for WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS during the dispute resolution process towards VQuakr [27] after [28]

I acknowledge making a misstep here late into the discussion, which I promptly struck through and then fully removed upon request with an apology.

The dispute primarily revolves on the insistence that the MP4 file format and ISO base media file format are not open formats and that an Open file format must have an Open license. An attempt to resolve the dispute around MP4 at Talk:MP4 file format through a third opinion by VQuakr leaned towards my perspective on the verifiabily of the sources, but as the war continued, both VQuakr and I thought it was better to bring it to the DRN, which ended up failing. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The dispute resolution attempt just ended; suggest giving Svnpenn a chance to move on without drama. IMHO, admin action is only needed here if they start disrupting mainspace again over this issue. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I failed the mediation, and I agree with User:VQuakr. Svnpenn has not edited since I failed the mediation. Maybe I should have said that an RFC should be tried first, with WP:ANI only as an unpleasant option. I suggest that a neutral RFC should be used. If Svnpenn has a concern that the concept of open format is ill-defined, there are other forums to raise that concern, as well as discussing it in the Discussion section of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I just created one RfC for each of the three articles. I didn't do this earlier following guidelines, as the dispute only involved two editors. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

---

I would say the above is premature, especially considering updates I now have in private. since my attempts to find a compromise in this matter have failed, I have been in contact with all of the LOC, ISO and IEC. I have today received a response in my favor from the LOC. they have communicated privately to me that they currently DO NOT consider MP4 an "open format", and pending a follow up I plan to update the talk page and possibly make further edits to related pages pending the outcome of these talks.

to state the obvious, the above user Fernando Trebien has gone WAY beyond anything that could be construed as constructive here. I offered at least 5 different compromise solutions to the disagreement, all of which were rejected or ignored by other editors. further, neither offered anything in the way of compromise. thats not acting in good faith I feel. instead, the above editor Fernando Trebien seems intent on punishing me, even though as others have said I have made no edits since the end of moderated discussion. Wikipedia is not the place to hold or act on grudges, it should be a high quality repository of information, that is my goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svnpenn (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Svnpenn: to manage your expectations here: personal communications with LOC, ISO, IEC, etc are not verifiable or published and won't move the needle on a discussion about article content. We're looking at published, reliable secondary sources in order to inform what goes into mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

you should REALLY stop assuming you know where my head is at. you dont. thanks for the feedback, but it doesn't apply to my situation at all. perhaps instead of continuing to ignore and reject my compromise offers, you could acknowledge them or offer your own. Svnpenn (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Simply put, editors are not required to compromise with you. If consensus is against your changes, you'll have to accept that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

there is no consensus. either within the editors in this discussion, nor Wikipedia broadly, nor even outside of Wikipedia, so it seems your comment doesn't apply here Svnpenn (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Well there's definitely a consensus within wikipedia that you have zero actual RS to support the changes you want to make, and a consensus that you need reliable sources to make any claim. So in that sense there's a definite consensus against your changes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

thats no longer the case. the document has now been updated to reflect the reality that MP4 is not an open format

https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml

and hasn't been since its removal from the ISO publicly available standards:

https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/ Svnpenn (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Since Svnpenn has resumed the mainspace disruption ([29], [30]) with the RfC still open, I think admin action is now warranted. VQuakr (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

at this point it seems action is warranted against the user VQuakr. the only reliable source from either side now states the exact phrase:

> it is not considered an open format

https://loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml

if user VQuakr is not convinced at this point they never will be. they are now actively ignoring the same URL above that they have repeatedly said is a reliable source. however now that the source disagrees with them, VQuakr wants to ignore it or discredit it. once the public source text was updated, their argument essentially fell apart. if they have additional sources in their favor, I am interested to see them. otherwise this conversation is essentially over. Svnpenn (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Editing the article while the RfC is still active can be considered disruptive, but on the other hand, the only reliable secondary source has in fact been updated in the meantime, explicitly confirming Svnpenn's claim. I pointed out that the source didn't update the date of the document, which I find a little strange, perhaps this still needs some discussion. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

However, it may be necessary to address past disruptive behavior and accusations of vandalism in edit summaries, which cannot be changed. While the updated source provides valuable clarification, achieving this could have been done with civility, so it doesn't automatically negate the need for a constructive and civil approach to resolving disputes. Moving forward, let's focus on fostering productive discussion and adhering to Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the MP4 article, I am willing to pause update on ISOBMFF to give any dissenters a chance to find additional sources in disagreement with my position. I like to thank Fernando Trebien for their willingness to accept reason. once a reliable source was located confirming my position, they finally relented.

I would again like to point out the disturbing nature of VQuakr recent activity. even in the face of their argument completely falling apart, they insist on continuing to edit against the reliable source. they dont have grounds to suggest admin action, as they are also editing during the RFC period, without a reliable source to back them up which is even more galling. if they have another source in their favor they should present it, otherwise they need to stop the edits and move on. Svnpenn (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Svnpenn: Once again, do not fail to assume good faith. You announced the source update on the talk page 3 minutes after editing the article. If VQuakr had been responding to notifications in chronological order, it is reasonable to assume that this could have led to a mistake in good faith. This sort of thing is part of why article editing during an RfC can be considered disruptive. Wikipedia has no deadline. --Fernando Trebien (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Svnpenn: that's simply not true, it still says it's an open standard: Open standard in that it is fully documented and disclosed. As with any ISO-sponsored project, any updates to the specification are done through the ISO process for such which includes funneling feedback through national members, such as ANSI in the case of the USA. This process is transparent in its procedure but because membership in national bodies is limited (for example, individuals are not eligible to join ANSI as members), it is not considered an open format. Moreover, the specification documents are paywalled. This should be resolved with discussion at the RfC, not you forcing through your preferred version and ignoring every other editor. VQuakr (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

> that's simply not true, it still says it's an open standard

this page:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/MP4_file_format

has the key OPEN FORMAT, not OPEN STANDARD. so the question of "is MP4 an open standard", that you seem to be trying to argue, has no bearing in this conversation. the question is "is MP4 an OPEN FORMAT". that question has been definitively answered now:

> it is not considered an open format

https://loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000155.shtml

> This should be resolved with discussion at the RfC, not you forcing through your preferred version and ignoring every other editor

thats not what has happened here. once multiple users pushed the point that LOC was reliable and other sources might not be reliable, I stopped editing and made comments in support of my position in various places. ONCE LOC text was updated, the matter is essentially settled, so I made an edit to MP4. since other users still have some concern, I have paused an update to ISOBMFF. not only that, but previous dissenters such as Fernando Trebien have now agreed that MP4 is NOT an open format.

so it now seems that YOU are forcing through YOUR preferred version, and ignoring every other editor, in the face of a source that is considered reliable by both sides of the argument. your attempts to cherry pick text from a reliable source while ignoring the confirming text is concerning. Svnpenn (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring over formatting

User @FeldmarschallGneisenau keeps changing the case of the title "Prime Minister" in Donald Tusk, which, per MOS:JOB, should be capitalized in the context in which it appears in the article. I brought the issue to User talk:FeldmarschallGneisenau, however, they keep on pushing the change without an established consensus. Max19582 (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

MoS isn't policy and the page-specific consensus ("prime minister of Poland") is established in pages for previous prime ministers and is long-standing when it comes to Donald Tusk as well. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

err MOS is standard you don't get to ignore MOS just because you disagree with it, plus I see no consensus for it on the talk page or archives. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

See another example - Olaf Scholz. "chancellor of Germany" with no needless capitalization. Titles chancellor, prime minister etc. aren't proper nouns, they are generic positions and do not to be capitalized and as you can see, aren't FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is, however. @FeldmarschallGneisenau links to prior discussions on the matter? Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

By consensus I mean this is how prime ministers in Poland have been covered for years, and not just prime ministers in Poland, a quick example is Olaf Scholz described simply as "chancellor of Germany" and not "Chancellor of Germany." As I wrote below, these aren't proper nouns, they're generic positions. This is a long-standing format that everyone accepted and no one challenged. Now user Max comes along and tries to change it and thinks he's somehow the consensus and I am somehow the one who has to take it to Talk. That's not how it works. You take to Talk something that you are challenging, which was long-standing. Hence why I am authorized to undo his changes that are carried out without a prior discussion at Talk, while his undoings are the ones that eventually violate the 3RR rule, and he has to take it to Talk. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"how prime ministers in Poland have been covered for years"

For almost all post-1989 prime ministers, the title is capitalized (see below).

"described simply as 'chancellor of Germany' and not 'Chancellor of Germany.'"

He is described as "the chancellor of Germany", which (per MOS:JOB) is different than just "Chancellor of Germany."

"he's somehow the consensus and I am somehow the one who has to take it to Talk"

Can you please say where the previous consensus was established? The current consensus is determined not by me, but by the Manual of Style (which is also the one that the article about Olaf Scholz and almost all articles about Polish prime ministers except for Morawiecki follow).

"Hence why I am authorized to undo his changes [...] while his undoings are the ones that eventually violate the 3RR rule, and he has to take it to Talk."

I think it is better if we both try to cooperate and fix the issue in a constructive manner, instead of silently hoping for the other party to be punished by the 3RR rule. I'm, once again, asking you to either provide links to discussions where the previous consensus was established, or seek a new one on the article's talk page. Contrary to what you are saying, articles about previous prime ministers do not spell the title in lowercase and all the other examples you provided follow MOS:JOB, the rule you are trying to create an exception to.

As for the article about Tusk, the article does not have a "long-standing" tradition either, since the title's formatting has changed many times throughout the years (2013 (capitalized), 2017 (capitalized), 2020 (capitalized, with "the"), 2021 (lowercase, with "the 14th"), 2023 (capitalized, with "the")), and my edit merely made it consistent with MOS and other articles. Max19582 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Morawiecki had been the prime minister for years, which is why I said that's how it's been for years. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@FeldmarschallGneisenau: The title is capitalized for almost all post-1989 Polish prime ministers (Jarosław Kaczyński, Beata Szydło, Ewa Kopacz, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, Marek Belka, Jerzy Buzek, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Józef Oleksy, Hanna Suchocka, Waldemar Pawlak, Jan Olszewski, Jan Krzysztof Bielecki), except for those where the title is indeed modified (Leszek Miller and Tadeusz Mazowiecki). The only exception for this rule is the article about Mateusz Morawiecki.

I see no discussions about this on the talk page for Tusk or Morawiecki either. Can you please provide relevant links where the consensus was established? Max19582 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in changes when it comes to all the pages you listed, although perhaps they're simply wrongly written and the 4 pages you mentioned (including Donald Tusk's) are written correctly, because when you combine this query with pages for foreign leaders - see another example - Olaf Scholz, "chancellor of Germany" is written with no needless capitalization. Titles chancellor, prime minister etc. aren't proper nouns, they are generic positions and do not to be capitalized and as you can see, aren't FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@FeldmarschallGneisenau: Please read MOS:JOB once again. In the article about Olaf Scholz, his position is preceded by an article - who has been serving as the chancellor of Germany since 8 December 2021. In the article about Donald Tusk the title is unmodified (who has served as Prime Minister of Poland), hence, per MOS, the title should be capitalized.

If you don't agree with this, please take this to the talk page to try seek new consensus. The current consensus is determined by the Manual of Style, and the long-standing format for Polish prime ministers is, as you can see above, that the titles are indeed capitalized. Max19582 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the long-standing format (used for years when Morawiecki was the prime minister and for months of Tusk's current tenure) required a correction indeed - with an article added in the front per MoS. That is a fine remark and I made now sure to include the article so everything is correct, even according to your revered MoS, and there is no need for a fight anymore. FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@FeldmarschallGneisenau: Both the variants are correct per MOS, but I do agree the current one ("the" + lowercase) can stay. Max19582 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor Lau737 "contributions."

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

---

Editor Lau737 has made several "contributions" into numerous articles using random pieces of wiki articles that they indiscriminately place into other articles.

Much of what Lau737 places into these articles does not frankly make sense or connect to whatever theme the passage seems to make.

Lau737 has been warned numerous times by several people - but does NOT seem to care to change or learn to do things right.

A list of Lau737's contributions show a laundry list of irrelevant and frivolous contributions. Please take a look at his editing and so-called irrational recycling of "contributions." Attached below is a brief view of his editing history.

Thank you. MRSawesome33 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Add user links: Lau737 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Schazjmd (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the list of contribution you copied here because we can just click on the contribs link and it's a giant wall of of 28 lines of text making it really hard to navigate. Northern Moonlight 20:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lau737, this is not the way to write encyclopedia articles. Please stop doing that and write something yourself. If you must copy other people's work then a little more attribution should be given than "see page history for attribution". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, their summary is almost exactly what is recommended for attribution when translating content from other Wikis: Help:Translation#License_requirements

– 2804:F14:80C6:A301:243A:A254:1976:1CDD (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I worded that badly. I meant that more explanation is needed of why they felt the need to copy others' work, either in the edit summary or on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that you brought attention to this user. He has made a bunch of eccentric edits and irritated many people—and he never learns from his mistakes. See his talk page for more information. Trakking (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Edits like this one demonstrate precisely why the pattern of mass rapid-fire copy-pasting is problematic; the material has absolutely no relevance to the article topic. Launching personal attacks and shouting at another editor in a highly contentious topic area are also major causes for concern. Left guide (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the edit on Acquaintance rape because it is fairly sexist considering it doesn't include statistics about males. That guy who plays games (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen anti-male prejudice in any of the contributions. That paragraph copied from another Wikipedia article cited the academic journals Deviant Behavior and Behavioral Sciences, and those scholarly studies of sexual assault on university campuses were also studying the gendered dimensions of such. What's at issue is that the inserted paragraph was about sexual assault more generally and not specifically about acquaintance rape, the topic of the article, and also that Lau737 hasn't being responsive to feedback from other editors about why such edits amount to being frivolous. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

They don't specify it, which is inherently benevolent sexism. If they included soruced info on both genders I would call it lazy editing, but they didn't. Also, the articles which those are included on never specify male data because of course they don't. That guy who plays games (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

After further review, I've gone ahead and reverted six of these mass indiscriminate copy-pastings as they don't appear to address the topics of the respective articles: toxic masculinity, sexual predator, causes of mental disorders, gender inequality in the U.S., youth suicide, and gender empowerment. Additional input or assistance welcomed. Left guide (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly all of those edits are trying to generate sympathy and don't have any encyclopedic value. That guy who plays games (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Reading over the talk page and just briefly looking at the other edits, I can't help but think WP:CIR is involved here. Even with the best intentions, if you don't have the competence to edit in areas, for whatever reason, and the ability to collaborate, then this is a real problem requiring a real solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm pinging SandyGeorgia because she has had some experience with the editor and I trust her objectivity and overall experience. This current problem seems to be part of a much larger trend, one that started as soon as this account was created. The combativeness and overall behavior, at first glance, seems to be a problem that is incompatible with editing here at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It just copy and pasting the same sentences from reports biased towards women. Unless the topic of the article is specifically about women, sources like that are overly due weight in my opinion. That guy who plays games (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Phil Bridger, Hi P-Makoto

Do not believe these people. They have been trying to smear me for months. All they do is harass me, make stuff up, and revert edits. I implore you not to believe anything that they say unless clear evidence is provided.`Dennis Brown, your mention of WP:CIR is a clear insult and adds nothing to this discussion. Every editor who comes in here saying something along the lines of "indiscriminate copy-pasting" does not deserve a comment from me. All of these texts and articles were carefully handpicked and on-topic.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That edit demonstrates the problem with that editor. They, uniquely, don't need to explain themselves or give evidence because they are always right. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment) The response by Lau above only solidifies my believe that the user needs blocking, if not for WP:CIR, for the battleground mentality displayed. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Lau appears to have attempted to WP:CANVASS two admins here; EvergreenFir and El C. I have no opinion on the broader report. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Those edits may, strictly speaking, violate WP:CANVASS, but I don't think there's too much to worry about because I see no reason why either editor should be sympathetic or unsympathetic towards Lau737. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage all attendants to be especially careful of any admin trying to hastily force a conclusion to this debacle. Trakking, BilledMammal, MRSawesome33, MartinPoulter, Grnrchst, and HaeB are all roughly on the same side of this issue and all guilty of taking great liberties with the truth. The stalking behavior is getting creepier too.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What issue? I don’t think we’ve ever interacted. BilledMammal (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody here except you has taken any liberties with the truth and there has been no stalking behaviour. Has nobody ever in your life punctured your delusions by telling you that you are simply wrong? I suppose this isn't the place for me to go off on a diatribe about the way children are brought up these days. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are dangerous words, Phil Bridger. BilledMammal has just engaged in, yes, stalking my behavior and twisted the truth to its full extent to classify me talking to two admins as "canvassing." He wants me gone, he wants the edits gone for whatever reason he can come up with, that is his only agenda, do you want me gone too Phil Bridger? Lau737 (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t even know who you are - I’m only here because El C’s talk page is on my watch list. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

More delusional behaviour. How could anyone possibly know who you are? As I said in my previous edit, you are simply wrong. Or are you the one person in the world who is right when everyone else is wrong? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your use of delusional is harassment under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment

Rather than list all the lies told to people here, I will simply refer you to my talk page, as well as the various talk pages that I commented on, and the various page histories where vicious editors have left plenty of comments, or no comments, they simply reverted things, hoping to get away with it. If you continue to hold that point of view, I will simply conclude that you did not bother to read those sources. I will not step into a flaming war with you and a small army of my personal opponents.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Lau737 seems to have a seriously discrepant view of how Wikipedia works, as an encyclopedia and as an editing community.

• Massive expansion of See Also sections. They defended their addition of Brinkmanship to Tyrant as "because of the use of nuclear deterrents, WMDs, or threats of war by contemporary and historical tyrants."[31] Other expansions include adding Precarious work to the See Also of Occupational hazard,[32] Make-work job to Capitalist peace[33] and vice versa,[34] Shill, Bootstrapping, Optimism, and Gullibility to One weird trick, and many others. They sometimes provide explanations eg for adding Gaslighting to Sleep deprivation, Both brainwashing and gaslighting benefit from sleep deprivation. It's an important aspect of mind control exerted by certain cults.[35]; broadly speaking, their approach may be to insert See Also for anything that is in their view similarly immoral (or occasionally, moral).
• Major copy-pastes of content between articles as described above, if every article within a domain should include everything about that domain.
• Personal attacks and no WP:AGF in edit summaries, such as Liar!,[36], undoing MartinPoulter and his distorted notion of relevance,[37] You are making stuff up![38] Yes, it is. It is you who doesn't want this article to be of any use to people!,[39] Didn't even want to give a reason for these, did you?,[40]
• Minimal use of article talk pages (0.6% of edits)[41]
• In this very ANI discussion, characterising editors who seek to correct or revert them as "all roughly on the same side of this issue and all guilty of taking great liberties with the truth"; "Do not believe these people. They have been trying to smear me for months. All they do is harass me, make stuff up, and revert edits.; "stalking my behavior and twisted the truth to its full extent". NebY (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

One-sided and wrong. Morality has nothing to do with the inclusion of these terms, they're simply on-topic. Lau737 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Weather these are on topic is debatable. These changes should be discussed on the respective articles talk page, and implemented after receiving WP:CONSENSUS. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 17:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I've given them an WP:NOTHERE block. If someone want's to unblock them go ahead. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• I fully support the block, and I think we are ready to close this topic. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse I was scrolling to see if it had been done, otherwise i was going to. Star Mississippi 22:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse block, although I think WP:CIR is the core issue making them WP:NOTHERE. Casting aspersions since this thread started is a good indication that they don't know how to collaborate, and they are a net-negative for the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think this merits reopening the discussion above, but I received an email from Lau737 that appears to be soliciting pity and linking to this section. I do not know this editor, nor am I aware of how we've ever crossed paths. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack report

Hello, I would like to report the user @M.Bitton because of a personal attack. I brought up a topic in the Hamas talk about whether Algeria should be a "state alliance". Since Algeria is public for Hamas. They also deny Israel's right to exist. He then removed my entry and says that I'm doing propaganda. My second concern is that @M.Bitton gave me an edit warning because I removed a paragraph from Morocco. I mislabeled it as spam. But @M.bitton has now started a talk by saying he is willing to remove the paragraph. Does the edit warning still apply or no longer? I see that it has already been removed by another user. I thank you in advance. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You didn't just mislabel it as spam, you said "I couldn't find the source or the person mentioned." despite both the source, Precarious Modernities, and the author, Cristiana Strava, being easy to find. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I just saw that he is the same person who suggested something like that to me. Even though I asked politely and nicely in the talk, he gave me an answer like this. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You must notify the editor(s) involved when posting to ani, I will do this for you for this post, but please keep this in mind for the future. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 22:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Okey thank you very much. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Vogelman29 where is the personal attack? Riad Salih (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Riad Salih In this edit he said to me: "disruptive single purpose account who's using wp a vehicle for propaganda" he specifically accuses me of carrying out propaganda. According to Wikipedia NPA, this is a personal attack. Vogelman29 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not intended as a personal attack in any way. It is more appropriate to discuss such matters on personal talk pages. By checking your edits, it is noticeable that the ideology you hold align closely with that of POV pushers. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. So actually that's what happened now that I registered a topic with Hamas. He removed it and accused me of doing propaganda. He should have explained his point of view under my talk. But simply removing it... and accusing me of doing propaganda is definitely a personal attack. I never said anything bad or edited anything where one might suspect it.... I didn't say anything wrong either, it's common knowledge that Algeria supports Hamas. I've now looked at the Wikipedia history of Hamas and seen that Algeria was an "allied state" for a very long time until @M.Bitton removed it... but as I said, you can discuss it but you can't just remove my talk and say that I do propaganda. So why do I do propaganda? Or POV? Vogelman29 (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You should read WP:ARBECR and WP:MAKINGEREQ and comply with them. Maybe have a look at section 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, specifically the part that prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view" and bear that in mind when you work on your Draft:Polisario's connection to terrorist organizations, text that strongly resembles propaganda to me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack and as noted below, your unsorced essay in the draft namespace is total propaganda. Whether or not you are here to seriously contribute is an open question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Draft:Polisario's connection to terrorist organizations absolutely is a problem, and a likely WP:MfD candidate, as it is indistinguishable from propaganda. While drafts are allowed to be incomplete or lacking in many areas, if they are obviously coatracks, make wild and unsourced claims, or are simply political essays, they don't belong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hello. Yes, it is actually still incomplete. I actually wanted to add sources for this. Unfortunately I don't always have time for that. I wanted to add links between the Polisario and terrorist groups as I believe they exist. Likewise between connections between Algeria and Hamas. That's not propaganda. I actually only have 2 important questions. Can I remove my edit warning on my talk without having any problems, since my edit was apparently carried out later by another user. And can I discuss in a talk whether Algeria has connections to Hamas without getting into problems. Vogelman29 (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I mean this edit, which was later confirmed. Vogelman29 (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This report is about M.Bitton, you filed it, there seems to be an indication that his comments were curt, but not a personal attack. I noticed your Draft, which someone has sent to MFD. You can't just make articles up that push a particular point of view, PARTICULARLY if you have no sources, whether they are a draft or article. Wikipedia is NOT the place you go to push your ideas. It is a neutral ground for documenting what the sources have said. I don't think you really understand that, and your time at Wikipedia is going to be short if you don't quickly learn this. As far as I'm concerned, the matter at hand is already handled. I'm not up for mentoring you, but you definitely need to pull back and learn a bit about what Wikipedia is before you jump in further. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

yes, but my article is incomplete. I wanted to change a lot of things and also provide sources; if I had more time I would do it faster. So if the draft means about Polisario. I find it a personal attack to accuse myself of propaganda. I've now looked at @M.Bitton Wikipedia history and it seems he was already banned but then unblocked. Because of this comment here. This is actually a similar one. He said:,,replying to the nationalist single purpose account". He was banned for that. Now he says:,, disruptive single purpose account who's using wp a vehicle for propaganda. That's actually the same statement, just worded differently. But if you say now that it wasn't a personal attack, then that's just how it is. Then the issue was settled. I would just like to remove my edit warning, can I do that? Vogelman29 (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

because removing this sentence apparently wasn't wrong. just the motives. I thought it was spam Vogelman29 (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

While the block you cited was at commons, not English Wikipedia, you certainly are able to remove warnings from your talk page, per WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Dennis Brown, Riad Salih, and Koavf: (also pinging Doug Weller since they have left a comment on their talk page) please note that despite the CT warning on the OP's talk page and the reminder by Sean.hoyland to read WP:ARBECR and WP:MAKINGEREQ, they still went ahead and created a POV fork in which they violated PIA multiple times. Needless to say that, yet again, they made zero attempt at writing something that actually informs, going as far as to misrepresent the sources to support their favourite narrative. M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Vogelman29: I would hope that you would please take the example above of these POV forks and recognize that these are problematic. If nothing else, just the optics and the politics of making an article about "Criminality and [people group]" or "[Undesirable trait] in [place]" is going to be the sort of topic that is (rightfully) contentious and until/unless you have a very clear reason why these kinds of possible crankery, possible propaganda, deep dives into how a certain demographic is associated with something repugnant is important to this encyclopedia, I'd recommend against making more of these. I'm not even saying that in principle these kind of articles can't be written, but you should probably have a lot more judiciousness about posting them here and probably familiarize yourself with existing articles where there are or may be some implication of a people group with a negative attribute. E.g. race and intelligence is a really contentious issue that has a lot of heated history and discussion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  As I said, there are definitely connections between the Polisario and other terrorist groups. There are also anti-Semitic people in Algeria. which is actually very strong and pronounced. But since no one wants to know about it, I try to avoid conflicts and join the Wikipedia team. If the team says it's inappropriate then so be it. Vogelman29 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, it seems like you are German, so maybe this example won't translate as well, but for instance, in my homeland of America, we have a strong segment of the population who have some very grotesque views about white supremacism and so even if you are just quoting some statistics which are true about black-on-black crime, that is a proxy and dog whistle for some really nasty right-wing subtext. (e.g.). So when you write an article about how Arabs are anti-Semites, that can be a problem not necessarily because you are writing any specifically untrue thing, but because you may be using Wikipedia as a soapbox for some kind of nasty agenda. To be clear, I'm not alleging you are: I don't know you. I'm just saying that these ostensibly factual articles give off strong hitpiece POV vibes that are inappropriate. Have you read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT before? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  What is objectionable about the article? Anti-Semitic is a big problem in North Africa and I have pointed it out with sources. The article is intended to educate and nothing else. I also wanted to tell you that I have nothing to do with the editor...

  But okay, I have the feeling that you are more concerned with the position of Algeria, as I can see from my article. At least you just paraphrased it as “anti-Semitic in Algeria”. Okey, I will never comment on Algeria again. Vogelman29 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked Vogelman29 as a standard admin action (Not AE/CT related) for WP:DE as a result of WP:CIR. They appear to lack the awareness to understand how their actions violate policy, so it wouldn't matter what area they edited in, this would be an ongoing issue. I deleted the last article under CSD:G7. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Please delete Draft:Antisemitism in Bulgaria and Draft:Sex tourism in Algiers (good gravy). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Using unreliable sources

dear admins the username @اَشکَش is using unreliable repetitive sources for example at noohani, and removing the sourced contents on many pages like jadgal, med and The Sindhis of Balochistan kindly look into it. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Respected admins, i have edited with many sources, you can check that for yourself. I even wrote on his talk page. He only has one source and that too in Sindhi language with no clear context, he is using it to edit Noohani Page,

He is using unreliable sources on other pages " Jadgal", "Med" and "The Sindhis of Balochistan" and at times he is using sources which donot even mention what he uses them for. You can have a loo at these pages. اَشکَش (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like your canvasing. That guy who plays games (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion at Talk:Noohani or Talk:Jadgal (I haven't looked at others). This indicates that you have not attempted to address this content dispute, and should not have brought it to ANI at this point. Please read and understand WP:BRD and WP:DR. ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

i wrote at his talk page but he removed it اَشکَش (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

1 this source only mentions a person named umar khan nuhani, 2 this source mentions a tribe that is extinct now. 3 4 mentions them to be nahmardis which are indeed origin tribe, and the 3rd source is used double times. While other sources are bare urls, which are difficult to verify.

And the username mostly uses the source which barely mentions the word only.

5 6, sources clearly mentions noohani to be a Sindhi tribe from Sindh. 7 in Sindhi mentions them to be Sammat. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

umer khan noohani in details is mentioned as baloch from noohani tribe, no they don't mention extinct tribes , the extinct one is a british colonial era supposition. Noohanis are clearly a Baloch tribe. The ones you are calling bare urls also mention it as a baloch tribe. Noohanis of Sindh especially Dadu are clearly a Baloch tribe and so do they identify, and this is what the sources say. اَشکَش (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

An individual can not be used for whole tribe, it does mention about a nuhani tribe which is disappeared. Read again, noohanis have Sindhi origins in your sources most of them call it noohani as Nohmardi plus mine sources also mention them to be Sindhi origins. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your other bare urls sources mentions few jadgal tribes as baloch, how can those sources be reliable? AngelicDevil29 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@اَشکَش and AngelicDevil29: Please discuss content disputes on either the appropriate article talk page (such as Talk:Noohani, Talk:Jadgal people, Talk:Med people and Talk:The Sindhis of Balochistan) or on each others talk pages. As written above on this page, "This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems", which isn't clear at this time. I recommend that you both review how to resolve content disputes and how to seek help from other users. A third opinion has been helpful with disputes I have had in the past. If you two create a good faith discussion on a talk page, I have no problem with trying to help by providing a third opinion.--WMrapids (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks, but as of now the dispute has been resolved. AngelicDevil29 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible Range Block for 92.40.*.*

There are two MFD's pending about unreferenced drafts about television shows featuring Alex Bickerton and Laura Blake:

• Draft:Golightly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:The Golightly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alex Bickerton and Laura Blake are real actors, brother and sister, so that these drafts are BLP violations (in addition to anything else). There has been a history of questionable drafts that have been deleted. Checking the history of these drafts, they were submitted from IPv4 addresses in the 92.40.*.* range, which is already partially blocked by User:HJ Mitchell from certain non-editing actions. Should these Hutchinson UK mobile broadband addresses be blocked from editing by non-logged-in users? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A /16 is pretty scary for a range block, even a partial. Remsense诉 02:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I went to Special:Contribs/92.40.0.0/16 and filtered the contribs page down to the draft namespace only, and saw that pretty much all the recent draft edits came from 92.40.200.* and 92.40.201.* IP addresses, which can be covered by a much smaller range: 92.40.200.195/23. Looking at the block log, it's been blocked four times from 2021-2022, though I'm not sure if it was the same user that was responsible for those blocks as here. But anyways, I think blocking 92.40.200.0/23 (or partially blocking it from draft namespace) will work here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've applied CSD:G3 and a generous portion of WP:SALT (a few had been created before). I will leave to a more experienced admin to do the block, but the /23 looks to be a good target. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell did a rather large 92.40.0.0/16 checkuser block that covers part of this range back in January (still in effect until July). Maybe he can take a look, please? Or another CU if he is busy. Most everything in the /23 range is either this trash I just deleted and salted [42] or other trash. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The block is for account creations only. It might not have been a block that I'd place, but there's not much wrong with it. It can be justified per CU, and is unrelated to the current above-stated issues. In my experience, smaller blocks often work on this range, and it's not common that they need to be extended. That said, as well as one of the busiest ranges in the UK, it has its share of issues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Long term disruption by IP range, mostly external links and see also sections

• 2600:8805:918B:9B00:C43B:4A2:BEAA:34F3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Lately, inserting linkspam into funerary themed articles, removing and/or changing content without explanation. But the problems go back several months, with at least a few of the IPs already blocked for persistence,with the same arguments over and over, as at [43]. Is a range block possible? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Odd edits and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#Serial suspect changes. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you--I just found that, too. Evasion of a three-year long block [44]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As a result, I'm requesting mass reversions of the range's edits, per WP:BANREVERT. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed solution: The IP may only edit under the following restrictions: they may either add or remove only one WP:EL per edit and they always have to use edit summaries for explaining what they do (their reasons). Also, they should not remove rotten links if those are still archived somewhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That may be a proposal for a time when the range blocks that are now in place have expired. As it stands, this looks like a WP:LTA who has been evading a block at least since December. It makes more sense, if it's logistically practical, to add this range to the current blocks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been going through some of their hundreds of edits one-by-one, and many of them are sloppy or make no sense. Waiting for administrative help and mass reversion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: The actual range here in question appears to be 2600:8805:918B:9B00:0:0:0:0/64. I went and searched through the larger /40 range surrounding it, and nearly all of the edits in question seem to be from that /64. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ugh not this editor again. They've been doing this for the last five years or so, at least. This is the third time this has happened. I've gone and blocked their entire IP range, 2600:8805:8000::/33, this time. There'll be collateral damage but this is the price we'll have to pay. I hit mass-rollback on the /64 ... I have to go soon though and will try to clean up after this later. Also see this archived thread on my talk page from the last time this happened. Graham87 (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ugh indeed. That's rather a long time to keep blowing through stop signs, insisting you're in the right. Thank you, Graham87. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Persistent addition of copyrighted content, continued disruptive editing following previous block

User DutchHistoryNerdWW2 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has repeatedly added copyrighted content, most recently on Battle of Baarle Nassau. They have previously been warned, see:

• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Tiger tank 222
• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Battle of Breda
• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Speedy deletion nomination of Incident of Shusha (2023)

Further, they have a history of disruptive editing by moving draftspace drafts to the mainspace without properly cleaning up templates and ensuring proper citations, see:

• Special:Diff/1212984134
• Special:Diff/1212548992

And does not respond to clarification on their talk page regarding missing references, see:

• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Missing bibliography on Ten Crucial Days Campaign.

They were previously warned and then blocked for the same issue, see:

• User talk:DutchHistoryNerdWW2 § Referencing and block log.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the user for persistently creating copyright violations. I do worry that a CCI may be warranted in this case, particularly since some of their creations appear to cite dead tree sources that would not be easily flagged for review by CopyPatrol. Don't have the time at the moment to do the paperwork on that, though I'm hopeful that a copyright clerk will be able to do that. Pinging Callitropsis in case he would be willing to look into this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Thanks for the ping. I'll be very busy with IRL stuff until the 19th, but I should be able to have a look then. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 16:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

COI in Edcel Greco Lagman

Gabnaparato (talk · contribs) has been consistently making edits to nothing but Filipino politician Edcel Greco Lagman since they started editing in 2022, see [[45]]. In recent weeks, they have been censoring flagged issues with the page as well as legal complaints filed against the subject and restoring grammatically incoherent edits without justification, see [[46]], [[47]] and [[48]], and most recently this misleading edit summary [[49]] made in spite of WP:RAPPLER being a bona fide WP:RS. I have issued a stern warning on their talk page but I would like to ask for further advice as to what steps should be taken since I have a suspicion that their account only exists for COI and WP:SOAPBOX purposes. Borgenland (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure what to say. Clearly, they are a WP:SPA, but that alone isn't against policy. The one instance of removing info and falsely claiming it wasn't sourced is a problem, but you warned them. Their edits remind me of Bmjc98 in some ways, who started the article, was a declared paid editor, and then was indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Not saying there is a link, it just reminds me of it. Only one overlapping edit, it's like one started exactly when the other stopped, but 6 months before the block for sockpuppetry. May not be more than an interesting note, but it is interesting. The question is: is it interesting enough for a Checkuser to get interested? I don't know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Jaggu5239 making absurd edits to increase their edit count

I noticed that Jaggu5239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making absurd edits in order to increase their edit count. Majority of their edits are meaningless edits on their own talk page, as seen here

They are also attempting to vandalize Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire. Given the nature of the edits, and the extended confirmed protection put on the article, this could be an attempt to game the system in order to edit Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire.

(Wayfarer Pacifist (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC))

This is the most blatant example of gaming the system I think I've ever seen. I would support an indef block. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• They already had 500 edits before they started the obvious attempt to jack up their edit totals, plus they had already been here 30 days, so I'm not sure what the bizarre editing of their own user space gained them. Putting the artificial padding of their own edits aside, they do seem to be trying to edit war on Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire and other related articles, all over a disagreement as to whether BOI (boxofficeindia.com) is a reliable source for box office sales, to the point that it seems they are breaching WP:DE. It looks like an obsession, or mission, to remove that website, even if they have to edit war over it. Whether it is WP:RS or not, I don't know, but this isn't the way to challenge it. It is a good way to get blocked, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  They weren’t even close to 500 edits when they began manipulating their edit count. Better check again. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I listed it wrong. You are correct, they used that spree to push themselves over the limit, and start this edit war. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• For what it is worth, I did go look at the RS noticeboard, WP:RSN, and the only discussion I saw about the website took place in 2008. [50]. While it was a contentious discussion (with lots of participation), it is an old discussion, and consensus can change, there wasn't any clear indication or close that says BOI isn't reliable. So I don't see the basis for making wholesale changes to multiple articles and making the claim, unless there was another discussion I didn't find. Short of that, I don't see any formal discussion that demonstrates a consensus that BOI is unreliable, making the claim opinion rather than consensus. They should have started a fresh discussion at WP:RSN if they felt it was unreliable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks to *194 for catching my error. I've indef blocked for a variety of reasons. Indef doesn't mean forever, but they will need to explain to another admin why they should be unblocked and convince them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ironically, the filing editor with 683 edits appears to have engaged in similar behavior at their userpage and sandbox, so there may be an element of WP:BOOMERANG in play here. Left guide (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  They both have an interest in lists of Indian (and regions of India) films as well as the Salaar article linked above, but with the precise opposite opinions (see [51] for an example). Could it be good hand/band hand sockpuppetry to discredit the other side? It's trivial enough disruption that investigation isn't necessary since a boomerang is probably in order either way. Sincerely, Novo Tape^{My Talk Page} 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I did run a comparison across both of them, but there wasn't enough of an overlap to draw a conclusion. Though yes I did think of that myself. Canterbury Tail talk 16:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

<insert Picard facepalm gif here> Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is a case of calling out another editor, rightfully so, for something you are, yourself, guilty of. --ARoseWolf 16:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Anonsfd37383321

Anonsfd37383321 (talk · contribs · count · logs)
The user is constantly involved in adding uncited/unreliable box office figures, even after multiple warnings (4im) and discussion. The incident is similar to Tusk001. The additon/updation of box office figures in Indian articles is under WP:ICTFSOURCES and the user has been made aware of that. But they continue to ignore the guidelines and edit protected articles, which were protected from disruptive uncited additions like these. They were given one last warning per WP:ROPE due to AGF but they aren't here for that. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The last nail in their own coffin. (facepalm.jpg) — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely, indefinitely blocked, Doug Weller talk 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

NoonIcarus and "Failed verification"

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

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

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

• Carlos Vecchio: NoonIcarus removes information about Vecchio working for ExxonMobil, saying it "failed verification." However, on page 38 of Libres: el nacimiento de una nueva Venezuela, Vecchio writes "Trabajo entonces en Mobil de Venezuela, la empresa petrolera, estaba ganando seis veces más de lo que ganada en PDVSA," ("I then worked at Mobil de Venezuela, the oil company, I was earning six times more than what I earned at PDVSA", showing that he clearly worked for ExxonMobil. This may be an attempt to hide that a high-level Venezuelan opposition leader previously worked for an American company, which is controversial in Venezuelan politics.
• 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum: NoonIcarus removes information about the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies working with the Venezuelan opposition during the election, citing "Failed verification, dead links". Strangely, these Stratfor articles were taken down after I added them to the election article, however they are still present in Google searches (as of now, though I took screenshots if necessary) and the article in particular can be seen mostly intact in this random 2007 forum. And here. Edit: Links should work now. Thanks!--WMrapids (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies: NoonIcarus tags "CANVAS is funded by primarily American organizations" as "Failed verification". However, if you look at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung article about the Venezuelan opposition's links to CANVAS, it says "Canvas wird wesentlich von amerikanischen Organisationen finanziert" ("Canvas is largely funded by American organizations"), showing that this can be verified.
• Venezuelan opposition: NoonIcarus removed information about CANVAS training members of the Venezuelan opposition, saying "Failed verification. This information comes from a 2012 WikiLeaks piece". This is entirely inaccurate and a falsehood as this information is sourced from Stratfor, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Le Monde diplomatique, with these sources not citing Wikileaks at all.
• Guarimba: NoonIcarus tagged the sentence "Oxford Analytica wrote that half of the protest deaths resulted at barricades" as "Failed verification". In the cited article, it clearly states "an estimated half of those killed losing their lives at opposition barricades".
• Guarimba 2: NoonIcarus says "Failed verification" about the sentence "Many families were confined to their homes as a result of guarimbas and in turn, children were prevented from attending school and individuals were unable to receive medical care." The source, the notable Venezuelan historian Margarita López Maya writes "Las protestas, conocidas como el «guarimbazo», ... [resultaron con el] confinamiento de centenares de familias a sus hogares por los cierres de vía que impidieron llevar a los niños a las escuelas, acudir al trabajo, o llegar a centros de salud." ("The protests, known as the 'guarimbazo', ... [resulted with the] confinement of hundreds of families to their homes due to road closures that prevented them from taking children to schools, going to work, or reaching health centers."
• Guarimba 3: With the sentence "At some guarimbas, protesters rob individuals who criticize the method", NoonIcarus said "Failed verification. Nowhere to be seen in article". The cited article by The Atlantic says "more radical elements of the party take to what’s called guarimba ... MUD supporters have stationed themselves at these ... shaking down people who don’t support the shutdown".
• Protests against Nicolás Maduro: A sentence about opposition protesters attacking a government facility said "President Maduro said the attack forced the evacuation of workers and about 89 children", with NoonIcarus saying that this had "Failed verification, no mention of children". The archived story, however, says "había 89 niños dentro de la sede, de los cuales 3 necesitaron asistencia con oxígeno" ("there were 89 children inside the headquarters, of which 3 needed assistance with oxygen"). One could excuse a potential lack of knowledge about web archiving, but NoonIcarus is very knowledgeable about web archiving when they want to be.

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

Wow. These "failed verification" lies (which is what these are) are so pervasive that unless NoonIcarus has a very good explanation for all of these, I'd go ahead with a site ban. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

All of these edits are recent or recent-ish (2024), and it's apparent from his userpage that NoonIcarus speaks Spanish. NoonIcarus isn't an inexperienced editor. I do find NoonIcarus' position defensible on the 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum; I could imagine that if I saw commentary I found suspicious that was sourced to a dead link, I might tag it with {{fv}}. I also think he's got an arguable case on Guarimba 3 because "shaking down" doesn't necessarily mean "robbing". On the other matters I fully side with WMrapids.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall: There was a URL issue,[52][53] though as I said, the articles were still easily accessible on Google. WMrapids (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your side of it. I just think it's only fair to note that it was a contentious claim sourced to a dead link.—S Marshall T/C 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

IMO the correct solution is to use {{dead link}} for the link not working, and also {{Verify source}} if you have doubts and cannot check the source due to the dead link. Failed verification implies that you checked the source and could not find the claim rather than you could not view the source. Note that the documentation for the failed verification template specifically says you should use dead link instead when the website is unreachable. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

While I didn't see anything in the documentation that I saw that says it's okay to use both the dead link and verify source template, I'd argue it's perfectly fine since they describe two related but separate issues. One is that the link is dead, so someone needs to either fix it in some way. E.g. they could find an archival link. Or alternatively replace it with a working source. Or in some cases if the source doesn't need a link ensure that there is sufficient info in the citation and possibly remove the link. The second issue is that an editor has doubts over the content but couldn't access the source to confirm it one way or the other. So wants someone who does have access to the source to verify it, perhaps providing a quote on the talk page to help or something. This isn't so different from a book or journal the editor doesn't have access to or a paywalled website, except here the problem is a dead link so fixing the dead link and confirming it verifies should be enough. If for whatever reason e.g. an editor gnoming a lot of related dead links doesn't have time to check, they're perfectly fine fixing the dead link, removing the dead link template and leaving the verify source for someone else to deal with perhaps even the editor who added it in the first place when they find the link was fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Using {{dead link}} is the correct option, but Template:Failed verification/doc only mentioned that in the body. I've made a slight change to reflect that in the lede of the documentation. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The main issue with said sources is that their format ([54]) did not show how they were accessed in the first place. There weren't archive links, archive dates or quotes, and if they had been truly accessed just a few days ago they should have been available when I did. I want to leave clear that I oppose removing links for being dead as the only reason, and I have rescued several of these references when I have found the archives. I was unaware about {{Verify source}}, and it looks like an useful tag that I will probably use in the future. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that {{Verify source}} should only be used only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information yourself if you are unable to find it, and still have doubts about its authenticity. You might also be interested in WP:IABOT, which can often repair dead links. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Re Carlos Vecchio: The cited book says "Mobil de Venezuela" and in the previous paragraph it suggests that the date was July 1998. Wikipedia's ExxonMobil article says Exxon merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil in November 1999. So I think NoonIcarus was correct, the Wikipedia claim that BLP subject Carlos Vecchio worked for ExxonMobil was poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs. Looking at History of ExxonMobil, we do not simply say "Mobil" when discussing the company historically. If we want to be super specific, "Mobil de Venezuela" could have been edited as a redirect (like Mobil de Venezuela), but this still doesn't warrant NoonIcarus' removal of the information entirely. WMrapids (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact Mr Vecchio did work for ExxonMobil a few years later, I was thrown off by your quoting of a passage that is not about that. Although I think the citing could have been more specific I was wrong to say it's poorly sourced. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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

• Such suggestions should wait until NoonIcarus has had some time to respond, I think. We normally give users a while to answer.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pre-emptively, I would definitely support a TBAN, because I have watched NoonIcarus's behaviour for a long time, and it is absolutely unacceptable. To be honest, I am suprised they haven't recieved a ban or block of any sort regarding this issue. I fear that they might be one of the unblockables, and that would be a great shame. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@JML1148 The reason this issue is getting little attention from admins is because of how verbose all of the participants are and how this dispute is outside of the knowledge of most people in the west, which is the English Wikipedia's main editor base. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally get the the thing regarding the conduct of the participants. I don't really think the issue is with it being outside the knowledge of most editors, though - there's been a few RfCs with widespread participation including the dispute between NoonIcarus and WMRapids. I definitely think a large number of administrators know about the dispute and the poor conduct involved, but aren't getting involved. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't remember where we knew each other from, until I found the request for comment RfC: VENRS, which WMrapids started. If your understanding about my experience as an editor comes mostly from WMrapids, I kindly ask if you have a chance to take a look at the ANI own complaints against WMrapids below. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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

If I understand this correctly, the allegation is that a user should be blocked for adding "failed verification" tags where other tags are appropriate? Isn't that a sledgehammer/nut response? As people have already shown the first two e examples aren't straightforward, I'm looking at the third example, the Frankfurter Zeitung source on Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies. The tagged reference is as follows: {{Cite news |date=1 April 2019 |title=Generation 2007 |work=Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung} There is no link, so impossible for someone to verify without finding the 1 April 2019 edition of FAZ, something I couldn't manage to do easily. It looks like the complainant here has access to the text, as they quote it on this page, so why not just add a hyperlink, or at least give the full quotation and maybe a page number, and remove the tag? Maybe "failed verification" is the wrong tag, but surely the ref doesn't meet our standards of verification and therefore Noonicarus was correct to tag it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Now I'm looking at the fourth example, Venezuelan opposition. Here the sources were removed rather than tagged. All of the removed sources are problematic from a verification point of view: the same FAZ ref without a link, a Monde Diplo article that is paywalled but which in another edit Noonicarus says doesn't mention Venezuela, and Stratfor links which are dead. So it would have been right to tag it. The removal was part of what seems to be quite a lot of back and forth editing with the complainant here inserting very POV material and Noonicarus hastily removing it. Would have been better for both editors to slow down and talk it out, but this is not an example of one user deviously using "failed verification" as framed in the complaint. The fifth example, Guarimba, is a bit like the third: the citation to Oxford Analytica doesn't have a hyperlink so is impossible to verify. The quote is too short to confirm it supports the text. Noonicarus tags it instead of removing it. It should be tagged in some way as it does indeed need more to verify it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) With the sixth example, also from Guarimba, I agree with WMrapids that on the face of it this should not have been removed. Noonicarus' edit summary is "Failed verification. Care should be also be taken, since unreliable government sources are frequently used, such as Venezolana de Televisión and Correo del Orinoco. It's clear that this is not the best source" which doesn't seem to match the content removed, suggesting it may have been a mistake, and WMRapids was right to revert it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) The seventh example, same WP article, was also a bad edit. Possibly Noonicarus searched the source without noticing the paywall half way down but the full article[55] does include the "shakedown" passage. I'd say the removed content was a rather POV rendering of the material, so this may have provoked this excessive response. So far I agree with WMRapids in two out of seven examples. There doesn't seem to be the malignant pattern the complaint implies. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Last one, on the protests. It's true the second source, a dead link, contained text about children, so flagging as need verification or checking the archive would have been better than removal. However, the actual claim in the WP article text doesn't correspond to the sources as comments attributed to Maduro (including about children) weren't made by Maduro. Again, there was bad POV material to which Noonicarus overreacted. So three out of eight edits raised here are problematic, but not in a way that suggests a need to sanctions. Is there an 1RR rule on Venezuela articles? That might be a better solution, to calm down the editing in general. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: I think you might be missing some of the context here. Although whether or not this specific incident warrants sanctions is debatable, according to your analysis, NoonIcarus has a history of POV pushing, incivility and assuming ownership of articles. There is a very long and detailed comment that WMRapids left on a previous ANI incident, found here. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: As I said in the opening of this discussion, Mbinebri already warned NoonIcarus that a "failed verification" tag is inappropriate if the user didn't have access to the source. A source does not need a link to be included. Failed verification means that someone had read the source and the content did not match the source. So, no, many of the tags and edit summaries were not "correct" as you suggest and NoonIcarus was deliberately removing information without properly verifying it.

I know that you two have worked pretty closely together on removing some info from United States involvement in regime change. This is where NoonIcarus and I have had a conflict (their frequent removals), but I reached out to them in an effort to avoid edit warring, suggesting that we add to articles and discuss instead of constant removals. This worked for but a moment until they reverted back to edit warring. It crossed the line when they inappropriately began removing information citing "failed verification", and now we are here. WMrapids (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

How long are admins going to let this go? It has been obvious for some time that Noonicarus can not edit competently on Latin American political articles and they need to be topic-banned at the very least.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Another few days. The OP has had time to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint. We give their target the same courtesy.—S Marshall T/C 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

WMrapids and source misinterpretation

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

TL;DR: WMrapids accuses me of "ignoring source content" but omits that I access said content and try to help with verifiability, such as by asking for quotes, which the editor never provided until now. WMrapids has a history of source misinterpretation that needs to be checked.

I was hoping that with this exchange and more interaction in talk pages there would be less conflict but alas, we find ourselves here again. I have already made several complaints about WMrapids' poor behavior in the past, including but not limited to edit warring, blanking and hounding (ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS, ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking), ANI#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids). For the sake of brevity I will focus in the recent issues.

WMrapids has a history of reference misinterpretation, original research and poor sourcing, sometimes leading to BLP violations (eg: WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda and Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis#Lancet editorial misrepresented). Controversial or fringe claims such as a congressman leading an auto theft gang, the CIA infiltration of Venezuelan intelligence services or the opposition involvement in the 2019 blackouts don't help either. The editor continues accusing me of bias, but with them casting doubts about Venezuelan torture victims testimonies [56][57][58][59][60][61] and own removal of content[62][63][64] shows that the editor does not hold all of the information to the same standard depending on its point of view. Another example of this is how they question the Organization of American States as a source in the Guarimba article ([65]), but doesn't have to have an issue with using it at the Ayacucho and Juliaca massacres articles (1, 2). To this date no explanation has been provided for this.

When I say "failed verification" it doesn't mean that I wasn't able to access the source or that I was too lazy to try to. God knows I have. Web Archive, Google Books, JSTOR, all the possible means available online if I don't happen to have an offline method to verify. Threads that include Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation, Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles, Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs and Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia show that I have accessed the references and that I am familiar with their content, if I had already not said it at the edit summaries.

WMrapids often doesn't include URLs, pages, quotes or other means to help with verifiability for bibliographical sources, even when they are easily accesible, and have continued to do so even when other users that asked for them to be included. The responsability to ensure the verifiability of the information lies on the user that adds it, but the user shifts this burden onto other editors, best exemplified by one of the last responses to the source requests: "Google"[66]. Talk pages such as Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor are witness that I have tried asking about the original quotes or learning more about the content in question, even when I haven't found it after accessing the source, and I often choose rewording or fixing the references instead of removal when I have the opportunity: [67][68][69][70][71].

I am very dissapointed that this is the first time that any of these quotes are brought up: not in its references, not in the talk pages, but to make a case against me, as they have with other editors that have challenged their edits, for requesting them in the first place. I don't want to speak on behalf of Mbinebri, but I believe that our exchange was a lot more open and amicable at Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt#Recent edits... with more to go(?) than the ones that I've had with WMrapids when I have challenged the content.

Responses to WMrapids accusations

The text's original source about Luis Posada Carriles (Bardach, Ann Louise (2002). Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana. Random House. pp. 184–186. ISBN 978-0-375-50489-1.), which describes the group saying [he] immediately went to war against the leftist guerrilla movements supported by Castro in Venezuela. It directly contradicts the description of he participated in the torture of left-wing activists. Searching "Exxon" in Google Books gives back page 56, whose preview doesn't mention anything about Qatar or Vecchio being a tax manager. Looking online, the main websites that have this information are outlets with a heinous reliability record, such as  The Grayzone (RSP entry) [72] and  Telesur (RSP entry) [73], as well as Venezuelan state outlets. Modifying the URL solves this issue. See Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor for the CANVAS content. The provided links were broken, Web Archive [74][75] didn't throw any results, and I asked for the specific quote. Nothing misleading here, the provided reference did not reflect the added content. I'm glad this has been fixed now. The information about the alleged relations between the Venezuelan opposition, Otpor! and CANVAS comes from Wikileaks' "Global Intelligence Files". This is even mentioned by a source that WMrapids provided:Wikileaks Docs Expose Famed Serbian Activist’s Ties to ‘Shadow CIA’. Stratfor links were broken (see above) and Le Monde diplomatique didn't mention Venezuela, something I also asked at Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs.  WikiLeaks (RSP entry) is an unreliable source per WP:RS/PS. See S Marshall's comment regarding "shaking down". I'm not the only person that does not think that "extortion" is the same as "robbing" If I recall correctly, I removed the information about children because the sentence talked specifically about evacuation. Yahoo's source was also dead, but can be accessed through Archive and says: Several people, including a young girl, have been rescued from Venezuela's Housing Ministry after it was set on fire by anti-government protesters.[76] If I had removed content simply because the links are dead and I didn't bother trying accessing them, as WMrapids claims, I would have deleted the whole statement, which is clearly not the case. The only exceptions that I can see are Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's and Oxford Analytica's sources; in both cases I tagged the sentences accordingly and did not remove the content. I'm finding out about {{verify source}} due to this thread, and I will probably use in the future in this context. As of López Maya's source, I simply did not find the original source. It is a 25 pages document and WMrapids usually doesn't provide quotes for the references, as I mentioned above.

I cannot stress how exhausted I am of this. It will be almost a year since this pattern has started since WMrapids started editing in Venezuelan topics. I don't know what to ask anymore besides for the community to make up their position based on this information and to propose a solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

YuvrajEnco and useless maps

YuvrajEnco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a number of useless silhouette maps which they are adding to a variety of articles, such as the one on the right. I asked them to stop adding them since they serve no useful purpose, but they have now started edit warring to retain them in articles. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't help the silhouette maps only show the shape of the area, instead of, you know, showing where it's supposed to be in relation to everything else. A map that provides no context as to location is worthless and adding such a "map" seems prima facie disruptive to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Jéské Couriano's assessment and accordingly, I have blocked YuvrajEnco from article space only, until this issue is resolved. Cullen328 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't help as they don't tell us where the maps were sourced from; I suspect they could be stripping content from copyrighted work to build these outlines (the New Amsterdam map looks dire with bridge outlines, and this Confederate flag may as well be MS Paint-created crud). Going right into contentious topics like the Londonderry/Derry dispute is also not normal newbie behavior.Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: What do you think about unblocking them provided they agree to not add silhouette maps to articles? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

JML1148, if I block an editor in error, I reverse the block immediately once I discover the error and apologize profusely. I do not think that has happened more than twice in six years. That is not the case here. My normal practice which is widely shared among other administrators is to not even comment on a hypothetical unblock request floated by another editor. If this editor files a properly formatted unblock request, then I would expect but not insist that the reviewing administrator would ask for my input, and I will certainly provide it at that time, based on what what the blocked editor actually says. I would expect the editor to explain, among other things, why they added a crappy map showing the five 21st century boroughs of New York City to an article about New Amsterdam, which was a 17th century Dutch colonial settlement at the southern tip of the island of Manhattan that came to an end in 1664. The editor, after all, has not been banned sitewide, but only from article space. They are free to comment right here or at the talk pages of the articles they added these bizarre maps to, or anywhere else, including in a properly formatted unblock request on their own talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

True... I guess if they really cared they would have responded here and explained their actions. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is prima facie disruptive but can be when combined with edit warring. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The lack of interaction on their talk page after two warnings is notable doktorb _words^deeds 22:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Usedtobecool

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

---

@Usedtobecool Has taken issue with how i handled an IP [77] who was blanking a page prior to consensus (which they were ultimately blocked for). Just now they are making accusations Here specifically “using warning templates indiscriminately and refusing to talk to editors they'd warned” & “they are putting forward the presumption that you must have checked everything they were doing and okayed it when granting rollback.” This is how Usedtobecool is choosing to perceive my actions and words. They are putting words in my mouth & making accusations which are unwarranted, untrue, all the while attempting to present as fact to an admin. All i’ve been is patient and understanding with them & to have the truth embellished like this simply because they are losing their cool is unethical. I felt the need to bring this to the attention of others here to be looked at from a different perspective. Thank you for your time. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but that IP seems to be acting in good faith and trying to communicate on the talk pages. Yes, they shouldn't have been edit warring, but we can't expect new users to know our policies and we have to assume good faith. You have been reverting them without any explanation, and when they tried to communicate on your talk page, you reverted them with no explanation. They had also previously communicated with you, and you told them what they are doing is vandalism (it is not). You said, just today, that "no one can blank a page prior to consensus". Usedtobecool is correct, and I do not think you have a good enough understanding of what is vandalism to have the rollback permission. Pinging @Fastily: as the granting admin for their views on this matter. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 04:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Also, there is nothing "unethical" about raising concerns regarding potential misuse of rollback privileges. Whether one agrees with them or not, nothing that Usedtobecool said was inappropriate or out of line. Grandpallama (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That IP was originally blocked for edit warring. The 2nd block dealt directly with blanking pages prior to consensus which to my understanding was prohibited here. But if i’m wrong then im wrong and i respect all of your opinions. That is why i came here. But please know i was always acting in good faith, all of my actions had to do with seeing an IP blanking a page (as i often do while patrolling recent changes). The first time around i had communicated with the IP that they need consensus prior to blanking. They got blocked then came back and started doing the exact same thing. Nonetheless, thank you all for taking time out to look at this. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is clearly a content dispute and not vandalism fighting and is edit warring on the part of the IP and the OP. Usedtobecool's posts at the teahouse seem to be appropriate too. —SpacemanSpiff 04:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add that that edit-war was not simply about blanking. They had clearly prejudged the IP and reverted a perfectly reasonable alternative the IP later tried[78], still without an edit summary. They finally used a summary when reverting a named user[79]. That refusal to talk even in edit summaries even as the IP tried different things to try and find compromise is extraordinary. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Their failure to listen is very troubling. They refused to listen to the IP; they didn't listen to Pppery and they didn't listen to me. We are going to lose more productivity to WP:BITE than we may gain from their anti-vandalism work if they continue to approach situations with prejudgement, use the wrong reasons to decide to revert, use the wrong rationales or no rationales in their edit summaries and warn users with templates that are no help to those who receive them. They need to communicate better, they need to listen, and they need to read policy pages they are pointed to in conversations. They can't come to an admin board for clarification every time someone cites policies that contradicts their understanding. I do not know whether we can leave rollback on as they figure these things out or should require that they figure it out first. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool Your last two entries kept me up all night my friend, if you truly believe i wouldn’t be an asset here I’ll have to seriously reconsider my contributions to the site. I never was coming from a place of bad faith. But it seems i’m not doing a good job here. For that, i apologize. My goal was always to help the encyclopedia, not hurt it. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you want me to say, Elvisisalive95? You have been writing "my friend" since we were back at the Teahouse but it does not read "my friend". I don't know whether you're just not aware of it or think it's not something you can be challenged on. You said my work was appreciated but it didn't feel like it was. What I felt was patronised and ignored. I put all of that aside because my priority was to try and get you to understand project expectations. These are not expectations held uniquely of you. It comes down to whether you understand my concerns or will seek to understand them moving forward. Whether you would be an asset depends on the answer to that question. I am not questioning your good faith. But as you can see now, the IP had good faith too; they ended up sanctioned anyway because the result was disruption. How should they feel that they got blocked twice and you got away with it? This won't be the last time someone says you're doing something wrong. We all double-check each other's work here, and everyone ends up on the receiving end of criticism sooner or later. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool I can see how you perceived it that way re-reading our exchange. I honestly look at wikipedia as a place of camaraderie & wasn’t trying to patronize you. And in all honest truth i wasn’t trying to get away with anything. I honestly thought that what the IP was doing constituted vandalism, them being blocked the 2nd time more so attributed to that. I will be a lot more careful with how i categorize vandalism & the warning templates i choose. Whether my rollback rights are revoked or not I hope we can leave this discussion on a fresh page. I do appreciate your work, it’s easy to be misconstrued over the internet. In my mind looking at the time you took out to go through everything & explain it thoroughly is something to be commended. I hope to see you around & perhaps i can check with you on certain instances that i’m not 100% sure about in the future. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Elvisisalive95, can you summarize for us what WP:BLAR states? Can you, in your own words, explain why it isn't vandalism? It still seems like you're not engaging with specifics. That would help reassure users here that you understand some (but not all) of the concerns being raised. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Grandpallama I would say there are times in which an article could make a useful redirect to some editors. In those cases, said user could redirect to another article (WP:Bold). If another editor disagrees with the redirect, seek consensus on the talk page before reverting. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe everything you just said. I did consider that you were confused because admins blocked the IP and didn't say anything to you. But the admins did disagree with you; they did so by blocking the IP for disruptive editing, not vandalism. They should have pointed out to you that you should not have used vandalism warnings, and they should have warned you for edit-warring (ideally, they should have blocked both of you or neither, but I digress). I didn't wish to make the matter even more complicated for me by calling out admins for minor misses, that happened for reasons other than that they misunderstood policy. Misunderstanding policy is a huge deal because that means you are going to continue to do the same, indefinitely. See, IPs can be correct and admins can make mistakes. So, you misunderstanding some things is not a big deal at all. Big deal was you refusing to consider the possibility. I am sure that won't be the case moving forward. I hope you stick around too. And nothing would make me happier than to see you stay and learn, become a better editor than me, and be in a position to help me with the situation when I happen to be the one misses something and makes mistakes. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your words, I am exited about growing and learning more and more about helping this encyclopedia for the better. Wikipedia has always been there for me throughout my life and now i want to be there for it in only positive ways. You’re a good person & what you said means a lot to me. I will see you around! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Zluxflux

I am not sure which noticeboard this is supposed to be on, and I apologise. User Zluxflux sent me a not very nice message on my talk page, which is certainly not civil. AkiyamaKana (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

One of Zluxflux's article edits needs suppression. Maybe both. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:AIV ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know where to put it as the report concerns a personal attack as well as vandalism. AkiyamaKana (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That comment is not acceptable in any way. Indeffed straight off the bat for that. You don't get warnings for comments like that, you get shown the one way door as fast as possible. Canterbury Tail talk 15:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And I've supressed the edit in question along with the comment on your talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Aecws - repeated copyvios, and constantly submitting AfC requests under someone else's name

Aecws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had two copyright violations against their account, both on Draft:Canadian Pacific 2860, the second time when they restored copyrighted content immediately after it had been reverted and they had been warned.

They have also repeatedly submitted AfC requests as User:Mr Mines Engine ([80], [81], [82], [83], [84], new page at Draft:Southern Pacific 982) and re-submitted them without bothering to set themselves as the submitter ([85], [86], [87]). They have been warned on their talk page about this behaviour ([88]), but have continued to do so, with the latest submission being today. Mr Mines Engine is receiving the constant AfC decline notifications on their talk page, despite having nothing to do with anything here (as evidenced by this comment [89]). Surely impersonation such as this should be strongly frowned upon? Danners430 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Using another editor to submit their AfCs is completely unacceptable. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 15:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for standing up for me, tho i actually did submitted Southern Pacific 982. I don’t like being used as bait by him. Mr Mines Engine (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It was Aecws that created the page initially, and the very first edit submitted it to AfC under your name Danners430 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I know he made the page but i was the one to submit it Mr Mines Engine (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

oh I see what you mean - that’s a mistake on my part, apologies Danners430 (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve just reverted a move that they carried out on Draft:Canadian Pacific 2860 - they moved the article to mainspace after the AfC was declined… Danners430 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In fact, they’ve moved a bunch of draft articles to main space - at least two, Draft:Great Western 51 and Draft:Southern Pacific 1233, had declined AFCs… Danners430 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that AfC is not a mandatory process, nor is a declined draft not allowed to leave draftspace. I believe the proper procedure is to take the articles to AfD rather than send them back to draftspace. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah OK - I don’t know much about AfC either, I simply saw what looked rather suspiciously like the user trying to circumvent process so reverted the changes - more than happy to accept a trouting for this! Danners430 (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Impersonation of any kind is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia for obvious reasons. It's very obvious that they should be indef blocked as soon as possible for WP:NOTHERE. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Innapropiate behavior in Amanda Du ponts talk page

User:Sikobuhle has been using the talk page for amanda du pont innapropiately, possibly related to the ip address who did the same. Sebbers10 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert per WP:NOTFORUM and move on. Nothing really major of actionable here. If they continue with this nonsense across multiple pages then maybe. If their posts keep disappearing they'll get the hint. Canterbury Tail talk 15:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the notice at the top of the page you must notify Sikobuhle about this discussion on their talk page. I've done so for you. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not going well on their user talk: User talk:Sikobuhle#Noticeboard discussion. Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, now it's some kid with a crush who is suffering from WP:CIR. Canterbury Tail talk 17:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of 'bias'

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

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

As those who have been following the topic will no doubt be aware, Wikipedia content on 'micronations' can often be contentious, and it isn't unusual for discussions to get fairly heated. The Liberland article in particular has often been troublesome, with occasional sockpuppetry and undeclared CoI editing added to the mix. Much of the too-and-fro of such debate is probably par for the course with such topics, and the questionable civility might best be ignored. I would however have to suggest that there are limits to this, and thus draw peoples' attention to recent comment being made by User: MicroSupporter on Talk:Liberland. For background, a contributor, new to the topic, and fairly new to Wikipedia in general, indicated a few weeks ago that they intended to do a substantive rewrite of the article (see the Talk:Liberland#Sursum capita thread). Given their inexperience, and the contested nature of the article, I then suggested that it might be wiser to create a draft proposal, rather than editing the article live. This was done, and comments regarding the draft were asked for. Though participation was fairly limited, since there seemed to be clear support for replacing the existing article with the new material, I suggested that the article be updated. At this point (the article not yet being updated), MicroSupporter finally chose to give their opinion in the thread (they were clearly aware of it, since they'd made a couple of edits to the draft, both reverted). I wasn't particularly surprised to see MicroSupporter opposing the update, but what I do find problematic is their repeated and unsubstantiated accusations of 'bias', directed at me (see [90][91][92]), and later at all who supported the draft content: Also, the only people in support of this revision are you, and 3 other people who seem to have a problem with not just Liberland but all others micronations. [93]

It should be noted that such accusations of 'bias' from MicroSupporter are not new: see e.g. [94], and seem to be symptomatic of an ongoing problem: an inability to accept that Wikipedia isn't a platform for the promotion of 'micronations', the single focus of MicroSupporter's entire contribution history. A history which sees repeated efforts to promote non-notable topics (e.g. the inappropriate creation of an article on the entirely non-notable Liberland Press, their attempts via Draft:Verdis (micronation) to create an article on another non-notable micronation etc), and to paint the 'micronations' in the best possible light - often with complete disregard for appropriate sourcing etc. As talk-page accusations go, 'bias' is generally-speaking a pretty tame one, but when it is not just repeated, but used as a substitute for substantive discussion of issues, and used to pre-emptively dismiss the opinions of multiple contributors, I think it crosses the line, and it may be time to consider whether action is needed to discourage such behaviour in a contributor so clearly at odds with broader community consensus in multiple regards. Flinging essentially evidence-free 'bias' accusations around willy-nilly is in my opinion disruptive, and sanctionable if repeated often enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be very offended on the fact I called you biased against micronations. Your problem with micronations was not only mentioned just by me but also @Thryduulf on WP:VPP, and ThecentreCZ on my talk page. Just because I made an article about a micronation does not mean it is a way of promotion. It is just more knowledge to Wikipedia. It's stupid to throw around a word like that to the point it is meaningless. By your meaning of promotion, articles about the United Kingdom or The Telegraph are promotional too. It is not a crime to have an interest in micronations and unrecognised states, and to contribute to the encyclopedia by writing more about that, as long as they are notable, which I considered both Liberland Press and Verdis to be. I have followed the creation guides and made sure they are not biased. I have gone through AfC requests too.

I have never declined my interest in micronations (hence even my name) and have always particularly found both European micronations and unrecognised European states a big interest, but it doesn't mean I will place biased information on there. I have always made sure to write two sides of the story, regardless of what I think, and you can view that in my contributions.

Also, I am not 'fairly new'. I have been on Wikipedia for over a year but I am not as committed as I initially planned to be as I have a job and a family to look after. I find it funny that the moment someone disagrees with you, you take them to ANI like a child. Good day. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, I made attempts to participate to the new article by trying to make it neutral, but my attempts were reverted. I also tried to discuss my issue with the lack of neutrality about the newly proposed article. I may be personally more in support of the idea of these micronations (although not part of), but that doesn't mean that I support everything about them, or even some of their legalities. I do however support the neutral writing of articles making sure that both views are taken into account. I do not support the removal of necessary information like infoboxes until the discussion at WP:VPP is complete. Removing it while all other micronational pages have it is silly, and the discussion at WP:VPP is far from over as even those supporting the new infoboxes do not entirely agree with them and have a lot of suggested chances as it removes a lot of necessary information. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion with User:ThecentreCZ on MicroSuporter's talk page [95] may very well be relevant here. Anyone wishing to do so might well take it into consideration as further evidence of the problems I illustrated above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't got time now to more than skim-read the above. I don't know whether MicroSupporter is or is not biased towards micronations, but it seems evident from the VPP discussion that AndyTheGrump is biased against them (iirc I'm not the only person to have mentioned this in that discussion). I'm not involved with articles about any individual micronations, but removing or changing the type of infobox (if that's what's happening) on any such articles while the discussion at VPP is ongoing is definitely not something that should be going on (regardless of what type of change is being made). Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'd really prefer that we stay on topic here, and not go off at a tangent, but I will note here that if you really wish to make accusations of 'bias' regarding the WP:VPP thread, I may have more to say on the subject, and that the evidence may not reflect particularly well on you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to remove infoboxes on micronation articles during the VPP discussion, which is centered exclusively on which parameters should be available in the infobox template, not whether articles should have them in the first place. That said, infoboxes are only a minor component of the discussion above and it's a distraction to focus on it when the real problem is exchanges like this:

ThecentreCZ 00:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, why did you allowed purging article of Liberland by some random crowd editors who just came there? As a person who supervise article Liberland you should have had been more vigilant. Liberland is most known micronation in the world and they are trying to purge it from cognizance, why the hell all other 50 micronations have infobox remained and they remove just the most known one? Thats not possible.

MicroSupporter 11:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @ThecentreCZ I have been trying to keep the infobox and the Liberland article. The bias is coming from other users who keep calling Liberland a 'scam' or a 'fake'.

ThecentreCZ 13:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Yes, you must fight more and call for help.

MicroSupporter 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @ThecentreCZ Can you help me fight this? I am not a frequent contributor.

AndyTheGrump 14:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) I would strongly advise you both to read WP:OWN and WP:CANVASS.

: ThecentreCZ 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Who asked? How did you even get here? You are stating on your page that you are: taking a break permanently, why are you then editing Wikipedia right now and misleading readers thinking that you are not active editor?

MicroSupporter 14:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @ThecentreCZ He is a troll who has a very personal problem with micronations. It has been addressed on WP:VPP. He is often called into ANI for insulting other users too judging by his talk page. lol

ThecentreCZ 15:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Thank you. Why the hell they removed the box even when RfC request on WP:VPP is still open? Until the end of RfC it should have remained in there. I've looked to the RfC discussion, there are many old acquaintances there like horrible editor leader Number 57. Their disurptive crowd is massive, they are exatly that people founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger is talking about in his speeches, how Wikipedia is beeing ruined.

MicroSupporter 15:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Their behaviour is horrid. I struggle to enjoy editing on Wikipedia because of these people. Andy just threatened me to WP:ANI for merely calling him biased. Something he tends to do every time he doesn't get his way.

MicroSupporter 15:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @ThecentreCZ sorry I forgot to tag

and the discussions leading up to this. JoelleJay (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf, so by your own admissions, you do not know what the discussion is about, do not know the particulars of the user who is the source of the complaint, and do not know what changes to the article are actually being discussed. but you do know enough about the filer to lodge an accusation of bias because they hold an opinion contrary to your own. what was the purpose of your post, and what do you feel you have brought to the discussion? ValarianB (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I do know what this discussion is about, offer no comment about matters I don't I know about but do offer relevant commentary about the aspects that I do know about. Which is exactly what one is supposed to do when a dispute is brought to these boards. Yes, AndyTheGrump holds an opinion contrary to my own in the VPP discussion, but so do multiple other users. The significant majority of those whom I disagree with in that discussion do not seem to be arguing from a position of bias, AndyTheGrump does and that is important context for their complaints about MicroSupporter. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I will freely admit to being biased. I am biased against using infoboxes to mislead readers as to the status of 'micronations' that are at best deeply contentious, and frequently outright fantasies. I am biased against using infoboxes to present the self-promoting claims of promotors of 'micronations' as fact. I am biased in favour of only using infoboxes for their intended purpose: summarising non-controversial factual information. Such bias is implicit in core Wikipedia policy. Feel free to propose an amendment to said policy if you disagree with it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As has been explained multiple times in the VPP discussion, that's not the impression your proposals are giving. However let's keep that discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It would have been a darned sight easier to keep it in one place if you didn't insist on repeatedly using this thread to go on about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think the drastic changes to the Liberland article are going to need a RFC and not a local talk page consensus. If I heard that the infobox was being removed, or that the article was being substantially revamped, I would have been against a Infobox removal. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that an RfC will ultimately be needed. Starting one, however, generally requires prior discussion of issues with content that need resolution, not unsubstantiated accusations of 'bias'. As I made clear above, I have done everything a could to encourage such discussion, suggesting a draft, and doing nothing to preempt it. I was a little disappointed at the lack of participation, but per WP:BRD it seemed reasonable to at least see how the update was received. As for the infobox issue, clearly the outcome of the WP:VPP discussion will be relevant, but regardless of which way it goes, it need not be a blocker with regard to updating the article as a whole. I would have hoped that any experienced contributor would have looked at the draft in that regard, rather than as another venue for a dispute over a single aspect of it that is already being discussed elsewhere. Quite obviously I'm not suggesting that updating the article to the draft is any sort of 'final version', and I'm quite sure there will be other issues to resolve. Such issues are however content-related, and of no direct concern here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It should also be noted that at the time the draft was being written, the Liberland article did not contain an infobox. It had been removed on 6th February, since talk-page discussion seemed to indicate support for doing so. In that regard, the draft was following the existing article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, there is a WP:EDITWAR on removing the infobox right now. It should be kept until the RfC discussion is closed. I agree with @ASmallMapleLeaf MicroSupporter (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A) The Liberland article had consensus to remove the infobox before the RfC started
B) There is still consensus to remove the infobox
C) The last stable version of the article does not have an infobox so even if t/p consensus was less clear that is the version it must be kept at
D) The RfC explicitly does not address the question of whether micronation articles should have an infobox (Where articles on micronations use an infobox, should they use..., workshopped out of a discussion where consensus was to specifically avoid asking whether micronations should have infoboxes), so its closure should have no effect on whether Liberland has an infobox
E) ASML, AFAICT, very narrowly escaped a TBAN from ANI as part of their unblock conditions from @Newyorkbrad and @Deepfriedokra so their heavy participation at ANI (27 edits in the last 3 weeks, a full 8% of their total edits) right now perhaps deserves its own scrutiny (as does their trouting of an editor who recently removed her support for ASML's desired micronation infobox format at the RfC). JoelleJay (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Il just note when on ANI I have not tried to 'pick sides' and rather tried to help users or diffuse disputes. You also state I 'trouted' an editor at the RFC because they withdrew there vote, that is not good faith in the slightest and was due to them mistakeningly striking another users vote. I have already stated il back consensus, I just think WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a bad path here. As for my editing on Liberland, I missed the discussion on the 'unrecognised' tag, and do not intend to add it back again if removed.

I don't care about the outcome of this ANI discussion, but I will care if someone such as yourself accuses me of being in the wrong for having a high edit count since my ban appeal on ANI (Mainly reverting Hamish Ross). ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right about the trouting, I've struck that part. LOCALCON is irrelevant when the topic itself is just a local content dispute and does not go against global P&Gs (and the P&Gs for infoboxes specifically state The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article., so this is exactly where such a discussion should take place). JoelleJay (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

it is rather plain to see that a user named "microsupporter" is here to advance a personal opinion about micronations, rather than to contribute to the articles in the spirit of an encyclopedia. especially when they attack editors they disagree with. ValarianB (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As I have repeated, I may have my personal stance on topics, but I want to re-affirm it doesn't change that I do my best to make sure that the content I write on here is non-biased. Written not in support or against whatever topic it is. I just want to contribute to Wikipedia in a non-biased, neutral perspective. I admit I shouldn't have used some words towards other editors, but I have been frustrated by Andy, and he has made personal attacks towards me in the past. It doesn't make it right for me to do the same back though. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some of the stubs like Liberland Press are not notable enough to have own article, but your behaviour is not convenient even more. I tend to agree that bias as a label this user used is adequate description, but there is no way to prove it other than some inquiry about all of the actions you made by some college of Wikipedians, which is not realistic to happen. Thereof I see using bias-description as just a normal opinion of a Wikipedian about your edits which is fine. As we see that you are person who is opposing traditional micronation infobox on Wikipedia used for years and MicroSupporer supports it, you both shouldn't be involved in this dispute and leave it for impartial editors. It is perfectly okay to have a concern about your purge of the infoboxes you are involved in. People should be concerned with ongoing village pump RfC about this topic, which is participated by well-known company of editors, thats true. People should invite impartial Wikipedians to there, because most of them didn't even noticed it and it is again discussed only by certain kind of users. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support ban/indef-block for MicroSupporer. NOTHERE/SPA. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I find this rather saddening for me as I have done nothing but tried to contribute to Wikipedia. I do not believe I am SPA or NOTHERE as I have made contributions to numerous categories per my contributions. However, I am most knowledgable in micronations (Molossia, Liberland, Verdis, Sealand) and unrecognised states (South Ossetia, Artsakh, Abkhazia). We are here to build an encyclopedia aren't we? You are welcome to look through my edits and see I have created nothing but non-biased information (or at least in my eyes). Regardless of my personal support for certain topics just like any other editor on Wikipedia, I have always made sure to make sure it is non-biased (or at least to my knowledge non-biased). MicroSupporter (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  @TrangaBellam you're going to need to present evidence of either no significant contributions in and/or disruption to other areas for anything more than a topic ban to be a serious consideration. A quick look at their recent contributions does suggests that while micronations are the single largest topic area they edit in regards, it is not the only one and there is nothing apparently disruptive about their contributions to other topic areas (I'm offering no opinion at this time about this contributions to the micronation topic area, I haven't looked at enough of them in context). Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf One can start with MicroSupporter's citation of disinformation-media like Parlamentní listy. Or his writing skills by which he managed to write such a long article on a "microstate" — mostly sourced to non-RS, as Andy noted — without mentioning its central aim, which is, to be a tax-free haven. Or ... In any case, civil-POV pushers are the worst and I won't really be wasting my time trying to put a long-list-of-policy-violations. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you want to ban someone you presenting evidence of policy violations is not optional. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I support report of TrangaBellam to the noticeboard and then subsequent 14-day block for unconstructive behavior. He purges 12 980 bytes of information in article of Liberland, with no intention of revork of the content and leaving the article almost a stub-article. MicroSupporter contibuted also to other topic-articles other than micronations. Support of ban of a new user who in goodwill trying to inprove Wikipedia is disgusting. ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just a check, who do you call "a new user"? The Banner talk 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I support this the report of @TrangaBellam He removed a large amount of the Liberland article, a lot of content removed has been on there for years, and well-cited too. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Info that you put back into the article. The Banner talk 20:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  I reverted his WP:VANDALISM. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  A content disagreement is not the same as vandalism. The Banner talk 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do not accuse someone of vandalism when it is not. Vandalism has a specific definition here, and false accusations can be considered a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:NCR.ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• MicroSupporter says I do however support the neutral writing of articles making sure that both views are taken into account. No, we do not balance mainstream views against fringe views like this. The mainstream simply ignores such silliness rather than debunking it, but we don't let that lead us into reporting only the fringe views. I note that that editor, both here and on the talk page, has compared his opponents to children. Most of us grew out of views such as treating micronations as legitimate before we reached puberty. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. And Thryduulf, I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here, but it is an odd hill. El_C 19:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Here? A fair examination of the editing of all involved parties. At the VPP discussion, micronations being treated in accordance with NPOV not the negative POV of some editors. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, here. Seemingly disregarding the pro-WP:FRINGE advocacy due to... reasons? El_C 19:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@El C, I think the reasons should be evident from his participation in the micronation infobox RfC... JoelleJay (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Where I have been consistently advocating for an NPOV approach, not a pro or anti anything approach. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not disregarding anything - I have no opinion about MicroSupporter's edits because I haven't looked at the evidence sufficiently to have an informed opinion. And I've said that explicitly twice. Whether MS is or is not inappropriately advocating FRINGE has no bearing on whether Andy is editing in accordance with policies. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

So far, you have presented precisely zero evidence of me 'editing against policies'. Disagreeing with your relentless badgering at WP:VPN isn't against policy. Disagreeing with the misuse of infoboxes to present the fringe promotional claims of 'micronation' supporters isn't against policy. Raising attention to the behavioural issues with a single-purpose contributor at ANI isn't against policy. On the other hand, if repeatedly posting in an ANI thread to drag the thread off-topic, while repeatedly failing to even take the time look into the substance of what the thread is actually about isn't against policy, it probably should be. And making repeated claims about policy violations without backing them up with evidence certainly is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not a single-purpose contributer thanks. I also can't believe I have to repeat this again but just because you don't like something being written about doesn't automatically mean it is 'promotional'. I don't agree with what a lot of micronations do, and I haven't called any of them legitimate (or fake) in my edits either. I have maintained WP:NPOV. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I call em like I see em, Thryduulf. JoelleJay, what, no link? El_C 20:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Here you go. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In which case you are seeing things in a manner that is contrary to multiple explicit statements, so either present evidence I'm editing in bad faith or withdraw the accusations. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, JoelleJay. Two problems come to mind: AndyTheGrump needs to better condense (here and at the RfC), and Thryduulf is letting issues they have with AndyTheGrump unduly influence their approach here. For example, witness the exchange that JoelleJay cited above, but Thryduulf still only sees AndyTheGrump as the problem, even with that disconcerting conversation in full display! El_C 20:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have explicitly said, at least three times now, that I don't only see AndyTheGrup as the problem, please stop making such incorrect accusations. I have said that I think AndyTheGrump is biased, and that I don't know whether MicroSupporter is or is not biased. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make things. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've tried my best to maintain WP:NPOV. I do have a personal liking for micronations and unrecognised states, but it doesn't mean I find them legitimate (or fake), more just of interest. If any of my edits show otherwise, I'd appreciate guidance from anyone on how I can make my edits more WP:NPOV and Wikipedia friendly. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it still isn't aligning for me, Thryduulf. Yes, you said that, but it isn't reflected in your emphases throughout this complaint, so it seems skewed to me. El_C 20:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

How is my talking about things I know and not talking about things I don't know evidence of my endorsing the latter? Why does my explicitly saying I'm neither endorsing or not endorsing things I've not commented on imply that I have any opinion (good or bad) about things such things? Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the outcome is one-sided, irrespective of one's declared opinion or lack thereof, when items critical of one party are emphasized but not so much the other. Again, I used the example of the exchange that JoelleJay cited above, but this is becoming circular. El_C 22:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If my opinion were the only one expressed then you might have a point, but my only substantive comments here have been to say that Andy has not come here as an innocent bystander and their behaviour needs examining as well. Not instead of MicroSupporter. Not defending, downplaying, exonerating, supporting or anything else towards MicroSupporter. Everything else has been defending myself against unsubstantiated accusations of bias for not expressing an uninformed opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding 'unsubstantiated accusations', are you going to provide any actual evidence (i.e. diffs) to back up your claims that I am 'biased' in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy, or are we just expected to take your word for it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to do more than just do what I did - point people to the entirety of the VPP discussion - because I didn't think that anybody would make anywhere near such a big deal about it. I won't have time to hunt out specific diffs until (probably) tomorrow afternoon or evening UTC though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be making very selective use of your time here. You can't find the time to look into the actual issues behind this thread (which had nothing to do with infoboxes, given that MicroSupporter was entirely wrong in suggesting that the draft was going to remove the infobox - it wasn't in the exiting article either), but you can find the time to drag the thread off-topic to gripe about a WP:VPP thread where you seemingly aren't getting your way. And now, after more griping about 'unsubstantiated accusations', you suddenly run out of time again when asked for substance. So here's a suggestion for you. Make the best use of your time by dropping out of this conversation entirely, and leave your diffs (if you can find any) for a new ANI thread, where we can discuss who exactly is 'biased', who is actually supporting Wikipedia policy om neutrality and due emphasis, and then discuss appropriate behaviour in village pump threads (and on ANI for that matter - I'll no doubt have something to say about dragging threads off-topic, even if you won't). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to do more than just do what I did - point people to the entirety of the VPP discussion

Then you're making accusations of bias without evidence, which is personal attack. I suggest you step away from this discussion entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have never referred to micronations as legitimate in any of my edits. I always include the term 'micronation' instead of 'country' to make sure the difference is known. If you look at how I edit, you'd see that I have (at least I believe) maintained WP:NPOV, and if I haven't, criticism is welcome. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Question. Are we going to actually do anything about MicroSupporter's behaviour regarding 'micronation' topics? Even putting aside the repeated and entirely unsubstantiated throwing around of accusations of 'bias', we have time and time again seen evidence that MicroSupporter is either incapable of understanding Wikipedia policies, or unwilling to comply with them. MicroSupporter seems entirely incapable of understanding what WP:NPOV is actually about (i.e. due balance, not some imaginary absolute 'neutrality'), seems incapable of distinguishing a reliable source from an unreliable one, repeatedly misrepresents what sources say, (see discussions of a Chicago School of Law article on Talk:Liberland for an example of that) and then lays claim to expertise while failing to provide the slightest evidence for it. Add this to the battleground behaviour and utterly misguided attempts to weaponise Wikipedia terminology to prevent normal editing practice (see e.g. above, describing TrangaBellam's edits to the Liberland article as WP:VANDALISM) and it is difficult to see how MicroSupporter can be of net benefit to the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing a large amount of an article without RFC is not normal editing practice. He removed vital information that was on there for years. Also, you have admitted to your WP:BIAS earlier on this ANI. I understand what WP:NPOV is, and I believe I have followed the correct guidelines for edits. If you look at the edits I have made on Liberland and other articles, I have maintained due balance. Your edits do not. You also claim that infoboxes on micronation articles are not appropriate, yet it has the micronation markings and it provides quick access to useful information, which is what a lot of people use the encyclopedia for. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing a large amount of an article without RFC is not normal editing practice. Wrong. you have admitted to your WP:BIAS earlier on this ANI What the fuck are you referring to? Provide a direct quote, NOW. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd ask that you remain WP:CIVIL and mind your language please. You said "I will freely admit to being biased. I am biased against using infoboxes to mislead readers as to the status of 'micronations' that are at best deeply contentious, and frequently outright fantasies.". Also, I will repeat again that I am not the only one accusing you of bias against micronations. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Also I forgot to type: Infoboxes provide quick access to vital information. It is not 'misleading' and the infobox shows at the top that it is a micronation. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Given the above response, I formally request that MicroSupporter be blocked indefinitely on grounds of incompetence to edit Wikipedia.. The full post of the material MicroSupporter quotes is as follows: I will freely admit to being biased. I am biased against using infoboxes to mislead readers as to the status of 'micronations' that are at best deeply contentious, and frequently outright fantasies. I am biased against using infoboxes to present the self-promoting claims of promotors of 'micronations' as fact. I am biased in favour of only using infoboxes for their intended purpose: summarising non-controversial factual information. Such bias is implicit in core Wikipedia policy. Feel free to propose an amendment to said policy if you disagree with it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC). As anyone with even a modicum of common sense will see, I am stating that I am biased in favour of applying Wikipedia policies. And MicroSupporter somehow presents this as evidence against me? This is utterly absurd. If it isn't wilful misinterpretation, it is cluelessness almost beyond comprehension. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh stop. Everyone knows your bias against micronations. You fail to WP:NPOV. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yet more evidence re WP:CIR. Combines battleground mentality with incompetence, and when called out on it, resorts to handing out orders... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really... and once again, you're one to talk considering your lack of WP:CIVILity and curse words. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@MicroSupporter: I think you might want to read WP:YESBIAS, that is:

NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It means "neutrally reflecting what the sources say. It does not mean that the article has to be 'neutral'." We do not document "neutral facts or opinions". Instead, we write about all facts and referenced opinions (that aren't solely based on primary sources) neutrally, even when those facts and opinions present bias.

The sources referred to here are those that meet our WP:SOURCE criteria, one of which is that sources must be independent. YouTube videos like this and the Liberland Foreign Minister [96] clearly do not meet those criteria.

Also, misrepresenting the words of others as you seem to have done above is a violation of WP:TPNO. Please do not do it again. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support ban. MicroSupporter is very clearly WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia. He is aggressively pushing a POV, to the point of edit warring on behalf of the inclusion of patent original research, unacceptably shitty self-published primary sources, and known conspiracist disinformation blogs. He has responded to WP:CANVASSING on his talk page by agreeing to be part (or remain part) of a coordinated bias-pushing brigade. When called out, he explodes into bursts of ad hominems and ad populums. He has a long and colourful history of being unwilling to learn. I was willing to remain on the sidelines until ten minutes ago but his demonstrable untruths here in this thread and his most recent dumb edit war have pushed me, to slightly mix metaphors, off the fence. GR Kraml (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Self published primary sources? The information on the infobox shows nothing but the size of the claimed area, the flag and the coat of arms, all of which is in your newly proposed article anyway. An infobox shows information already visible in the article but just makes it easier to access. I do not understand why you and @AndyTheGrump are so upset over the existence of an infobox and don't just wait for WP:VPP to be resolved. What self published sources did I ever add to the infobox by the way? This is misleading. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. As a editor who has been editing on Wikipedia just for 2 years, MicroSupporter doesn't need to know every possible rule as on here and he is acting in accordance with good will editing. I would like to say that using cursing words here are not something I would approve so I would like to ask @AndyTheGrump who is cursing in the discussion to immediately apologize for saying vulgar words or I will be requiring ban for him. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  Aren't you the person who started the canvassing we're discussing here? GR Kraml (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how he was canvassing? I was already involved in the discussions on Talk:Liberland. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, you must fight more and call for help. [97] Canvassing to engage in battleground behaviour. A call which was clearly responded to as requested. ThecentreCZ would probably be well-advised to avoid drawing further attention to their abject disregard for Wikipedia policy in that thread, before someone decides it is block-worthy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was already fighting and I did not call for any help. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• I was already fighting... Indeed. Hence my suggestion that battleground behaviour be included in the many reasons why you shouldn't be contributing to Wikipedia. As for whether ThecentreCZ's suggestion that you 'fight more' influenced you, or your subsequent escalation was purely your own choice, it doesn't really matter. Canvassing is still canvassing, even if it doesn't actually have any concrete results. It's the intent that counts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for @AndyTheGrump, @GR Kraml to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia indefinitely. While I may not be perfect in my responses or editing (no Wikipedia editor is), I at least owned up to my mistakes such as my personal attacks. I apologised and made sure to understand that we are all here to build an encyclopedia. I was going to consider adding @The Banner to this, but I can only find him to have WP:BIAS. I cannot find any foul language.

Unfortunately, @AndyTheGrump has used personal attacks on users countless times. I can't even count the amount of times he has been mentioned in ANI or been warned for personal attacks. Yet he is still roaming around completely scot-free. Look at his talk page for some of his warnings.. He fails WP:CIVIL (foul language, REPEATED personal attacks), WP:NPOV (yes I know I'm not perfect too, allegedly) and WP:BIAS. Whether or not he has admitted to his bias against micronations, but it looks pretty obvious to me judging by his wording on Talk:Liberland, WP:VPP and WP:ANI.

@GR Kraml is quite close to being WP:SPA. Immediately after his account was created he basically just started making a Liberland article. He has also acted in WP:BIAS on his recent Liberland article proposal instead of WP:NPOV. Go check it out for yourself.

MicroSupporter (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This should be fun... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Immediately after his account was created he basically just started making a Liberland article The draft article MicroSupporter references is here. I'm fairly proud of it. It's a comprehensive but still reasonably succinct encyclopedia article on the Liberland project, well supported by reliable sources. It's a clear and drastic improvement over the unstructured jumble of trivia, bullshit cited to self-published primary sources, and random original research that was the live article at the time. GR Kraml (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

So you want everybody blocked who does not agree with your opinion, MicroSupporter? The Banner talk 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No. I did not request for you to be blocked or any of the others in the discussions such as Donald Albury. Only the two users I have listed above. But please, change the narrative as you like it. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Support block but not a ban At this moment it is clear that @MicroSupporter is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. This is evidently by his attempt to get everybody blocked who disagrees with him. The Banner talk 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok look at my contributions and tell me they are not neutral. Please show me. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit war over the infobox? The Banner talk 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What's that got to do with neutrality of information? All the infobox does is simplify the information that is already in the paragraphs of the article. MicroSupporter (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Liberland#Proposal to remove the infobox. Here you start with the bias story. The Banner talk 17:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please quote the bias. All I see is trying to keep the info box because it contains information that is further down the page in paragraphs anyway. And me saying people living there is a fact, not an opinion. There are people sleeping there. I don’t see how that’s bias. For the record, I am not even a Liberlander and while I do find the project interesting, it doesn’t mean I support it or am against it. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edit here. The Banner talk 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the bias? I said it has notability, and it does. I’d the BBC, Radio Free Europe, CNN, Al Jazeera and VICE aren’t reliable sources, I don’t know what are. All I did was provide information about Liberland’s history in that message. All of which is easy to reference. I’m not saying “I support Liberland and for that reason it should be there” MicroSupporter (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You are unable to read your own edit??? Or did you never look at that edit? The Banner talk 19:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Support ban, due to repeated WP:NPAs in this discussion, failure to listen to others, and unwillingness to abide by WP:DUE in micronation article content. If a full ban does not have support, then I propose a topic ban from the subject of micronations (which is effectively a ban anyway given the users focus). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support ban due to clearly being an WP:SPA here to edit tendentiously about micronations; a topic-ban from micronations broadly construed might be worth considering as an alternative, but since they're an SPA who shows no hint of contrition or recognition of what they've done wrong, there's little point, since there's not much hope they'd edit constructively elsewhere. I'd say what they're doing is WP:CIVILPOV but the WP:ASPERSIONS above accusing basically everyone who disagrees with them of bias (when they named themselves MicroSupporter!) can hardly be called civil. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support block/ban MS clearly lacks the decorum needed to engage in collaborative discussions regarding editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I have decided to leave English Wikipedia for good. There are too many users who cunningly act like Number 57 by removing infoboxes for literally no reason. It's sad that this started all over an infobox which provided basic information that was already well-cited further down in the article in paragraphs, and still is. There was no reason to remove the infobox regardless of people's views on if Liberland was 'legitimate' or 'fake'. Infoboxes are there to provide quick information that is already in the article, and the infobox I argued to keep had been there since 2015. I have been called out for WP:BIAS because I have an interest in micronations (Sealand, Liberland, etc) and unrecognised states (Transnistria, Somaliland, Ambazonia, etc) and have made by views clear in talk pages just like everyone else who has participated in this discussion, but my edits on live articles have not shown any bias and until someone can show me that I made any edits outside of talk pages with WP:BIAS, I will continue to keep this view. I kept WP:CIVIL (aside from one or two personal attacks, but no curse words). People want micronations removed because they are 'fake'. I don't disagree that they are fake countries, and I don't disagree that they aren't. You are forgetting the insane coverage micronations (like Liberland) have had, and its content should remain on Wikipedia due to its notability, not removed because of your personal views and because you think its a scam. Back the points up with sources but make sure to keep WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia has become a load of trash ran by admins and users who think that changing information on Wikipedia changes the entire narrative of a subject worldwide, and gatekeep anything they disagree with regardless of its notability. An excuse can be found anywhere. The removal of infoboxes is a childish way of getting these arguments started, and blatantly calling something promotion is just another excuse to get rid of something, even if an article has WP:RS.

So with that, I bid farewell, and I truly hope for a downfall of Wikipedia and the growth of a new, unbiased encyclopedia in the future. You know, one that hasn't fallen into the hands of admins that even the founder hates. Stop re-writing articles to fit to your own narratives. I know I'm going to get some last-minute childish responses to this but do as you please. Just proves my point. Goodbye. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: I said something like this on my talk page when I got blocked in a more disputable circumstances (minus the bad site bit). I came back a week later. Honestly, I urge you just cool off, come back fresh soon. I also hope you consider my own perspective on the debate: I do think that the infobox on Liberland should be kept in some way. However, a key lesson to learn on Wikipedia is that in regards to debates such as this, in which there appears to be a consensus against you, is ultimately there is no shame in admitting others disagree with you for there own reasons, and that you won't be able to prevent a change. Even if I were (hypothetically, I never have been) absolutely against a suggestion from someone, like you are, and it passed, why not just say "what gives?". Because if Wikipedia is indeed 'biased', at least you, from your standpoint , didn't cause it. Your probably going to be blocked here, but if you do come back, I'd be keen to see your appeal to it. Again, cool off, reread this thread in a few weeks, and learn from what others have told you. Because ultimately, you don't have to agree with other editors - you just need to acknowledge them as an equal, and someone with a much intent in improving wikipedia as much as you do. Ciao. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support a WP:CIR block for wanting to play a big role in a clearly problematic area of the encyclopedia while facing an inability to handle disputes and having a POV-pushing attitude with a propensity for casting aspersions and wikilawyering, as exemplified in their comment starting with Request for @AndyTheGrump, @GR Kraml to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia indefinitely (a banal self-preservation tactic of moving the Overton window, and asking for more to settle for less) and seen in their lack of understanding of the editorial process expressed in Removing a large amount of an article without RFC is not normal editing practice and other comments. Not opposed to a ban of any kind, but this kind of basic disruption is more block-worthy than ban-worthy I feel.—Alalch E. 22:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support indef block due to the repeated battleground behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  We might also need to consider whether the same sanction might be appropriate for ThecentreCZ. This edit sets off the battleground alarm bells. Also, the cognitive dissonance of demanding that Andy apologize for using profanity less than a day after ThecentreCZ posted this message suggests an amusing lack of self-awareness. That latter diff also contains an undisguised personal attack against Number57, who was similarly attacked above by MicroSupporter. If ThecentreCZ isn't prepared to convince us that this behavior will not be repeated, a second block proposal may be in order. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be on board with this. ThecentreCZ has shown the same agenda as MicroSupporter, the same willingness to brigade articles and broadly the same lack of introspection. Looking at their talk page, they are now also showing the same aggressive unwillingness to familiarise themselves with guidelines and conventions. GR Kraml (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support MS's battleground behaviour is a blockable offence itself. I also agree with a possible proposal to tban/block ThecentreCZ. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support some kind of action. After a consensus on a talk page to remove an infobox, they responded to canvassing to restore the infobox against that consensus. Consensus can change but discussion not battle ground behaviour is required in doing so. That and the continued aspersions shown in this discussion show something needs to be done. A block with a topic ban from the area if they return is probably the best idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Follow up from VPM: topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps

Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal

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

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

• How anyone can read Rachel Helps (BYU)'s user page (even before recent edits) and say her CoI is "undisclosed " beggars belief. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • Now try addressing what I said, rather than some other imagining. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
    • And don't edit my comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
      • My sincerest apologies, I think that was an edit conflict (you added it in a separate edit presumably while I was replying to you). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
        • NP, I've also just had an EC with no notification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

  • 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)

• 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."[98] 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(Redacted). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nobble is actually a word, huh. Also, another day, another Primefac LDSuppression — when will it end? El_C 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Support and agree with Certes above that this is only part of the problem. I became aware of the BYU walled garden of sources, awards, and editors through the Nihonjoe ANI discussion and subsequent Arbcom case. Looking at their edits, I first noticed the problematic editing and undisclosed COI of User:Thmazing, who will warrant an ANI section on their own. But other names which kept popping up where User:P-Makoto, who keeps denying the obvious COI issues, and Rachel Helps (and her other account) and her large number of paid BYU students (who list her as their employer).

When I look at an article like Second Nephi, completely rewritten by these editors over the last few months[99] (apart from P-Makoto and Rachel Helps, I count 3 other paid BYU editors there): the page is expanded, but hardly improved. Claims like "J.N. Washburn, an independent scholar, cites that 199 of 433 verses from Isaiah appear with the same wording and proposes that Joseph Smith used the King James Bible version whenever it was close enough to the original meaning of the plates he was said to be translating and used the new translation when meaning differed" not only treat the "he find some old plates he translated" as truth, but try to claim that "independent" scholars support this, even though Jesse Nile Washburn was a LDS missionary who had studied at BYU before he published his books on Mormonism, so no idea what's "independent" about him. The whole article, just like most articles rewritten by Rachel Helps and her employees, are written from a distinctly in-universe, uncritical perspective.

For some reason she is very reluctant to note her COI on the talk page of these articles, insisting that the declaration on her user page is sufficient. She also takes it upon herself to remove critical tags from the pages, e.g. here or here, or to remove correct[100][101] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[102]. 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Getting a bit off-topic. ජපස seems OK with hatting this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
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) 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) 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) Acknowledging my disclosed past connection to BYU, I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous, howsoever inadvertently, to frame this as humanitarian concern for Heidi Pusey (BYU) and kind of paternalistic to insist that she can't assess for herself what her situation at BYU is like and whether there's any risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, to use your words. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

• Support The evidence seems to be quite clear. scope_creep^Talk 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 [103] 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)

  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)

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)

• Comment: I worry we're conflating separate issues.

1) Rachel Helps' involvement with articles about AML, ARCH-HIVE, and Michael Austin strikes me as a clear COI issue and a breach of community trust.

2) There's a broader question around how to interpret COI when it comes to BYU and the LDS church. I think the COI argument here is plausible, but much less clear cut than #1. I do worry about creating a chilling effect for e.g. an Oxford professor citing a colleague who was published by Oxford University Press, or a math teacher at a Catholic school editing a page on the Trinity. If we do need to consider this COI, I think we should take our time and define the problem narrowly and precisely.

3) There are NPOV and sourcing concerns around some Book of Mormon articles. I'm skeptical that a topic ban will improve this, or that the articles are worse for BYU editors' involvement. Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. The BYU team seems to take these concerns seriously and make good faith efforts to include non-LDS sources. If individual articles aren't notable, we can delete them.

4) Finally, there's a concern about implicitly endorsing BYU policies and potential risks to BYU's editors. I agree with P-Makoto that this feels paternalistic, and I don't think this standard is workable. Even if we assume the worst of BYU, should we shut down any attempts to engage editors in China, in case someone writes something that upsets the CCP?

I would support a sanction that's more narrowly tailored, e.g. blocking Rachel Helps from edits around AML and BYU faculty, while still letting her write about scripture and history. It seems excessive to block her from absolutely anything LDS related (e.g. Battle at Fort Utah) or to shut the program down.

(In case there are any concerns: I've never met any of the editors involved, I've never attended, worked for, or even visited BYU, I learned what AML was earlier this afternoon, and I've never been a member of the church). Ghosts of Europa (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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[104][105][106][107][108], 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)

  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)

  Please read the original thread, this is discussed in great detail. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  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.[109] (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. ...) [110][111] (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)

  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)

  Note: a query to FyzixFighter about any potential COI elicited this strange response.[112] Bon courage (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• Oppose such a ban. Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, for example January 2023[113] 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Then you haven't been looking at disputes over the Shroud of Turin. jps (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  LDS is a new religious movement the same as Scientology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  To clarify, are you opposing the topic ban for Thmazing (not Rachel Helps)? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've moved it to the correct section. Apologies and thanks for the tip! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  • 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)

  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)

  Point of order: she knew this was coming for the last four years at least[114]. 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  In that case, why not topic ban just to make it clear? jps (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
  • "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)

    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)

• 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)

  @Pigsonthewing: I see this isn't your first rodeo[115]. 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)

Topic ban for Thmazing

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

• • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)

  @AirshipJungleman29: I've removed the personal attack. Please remain civil when describing behaviour from other editors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  @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)

  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)

• Support per the above comments. Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, but per Levivich, would easily support more, as this is ridiculously lenient. Grandpallama (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • @Steve Quinn: - perhaps you can look at the articles Elias: An Epic of the Ages (most obvious, look here first), Adam and Eve in Mormonism, and Brad Teare. starship.paint (RUN) 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Support, per extensive discussion above and elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support, per evidence presented by others. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing concerns

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

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

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

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 [116] 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)

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)

I would also note that since pinging you to that first discussion P-Makoto has disclosed a series of COIs. In hindsight that appears to be on-wiki canvassing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Then the canvassing issue you have is with P-Makoto, for the first two discussions, not Awilley. starship.paint (RUN) 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater. We talked thoroughly on my userpage why the conflict of interest policy left me with the impression that it asked about current relationships and not terminated ones, and I apologized for that, both to you personally and in the Village Pump thread. This thread is the first that I learned Awilley had any connection to BYU. I pinged Awilley, along with Drmies and Mackensen, because they had participated in a past ANI thread about HEB and I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again. There are ways of communicating about COI other than by violating the harassment and privacy policies. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Levivich, up until today I didn't know that P-Makoto was a BYU alumnus. And frankly knowing it now doesn't really change anything for me. She's just an editor with whom I cross paths with occasionally. There's only one Wikipedia editor I've ever knowingly met in real life. We went to lunch together and had a nice talk. Maybe he was a BYU alumnus too; I don't actually know. And it doesn't matter. Editors on Wikipedia should be judged by their words and actions, not the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended. ~Awilley (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

And did you see it on the discord? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll

@S Marshall: closed a controversial RFC today at Talk:Tim Hunt, see Talk:Tim Hunt#RfC: 2015 remarks. Whilst acknowledging there appeared to be a consensus, he reminded editors that consensus can't over-rule founding principles, the second pillar, and core content policy and quoting the amplification on his talk page these cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong. He later emphasised this on his own talk page [117] in response to a query [118].

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[119]. 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 [120] with the edit summary "Don't be silly", I restored the tag and it was once again removed by JayBeeEll [121] 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 [122] in response to my concerns and the unnecessary 3RR warning on my talk page appears to confirm [123] 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. WCM_email 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

DUCK Sock yet again

Nauman338 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Back again with long term sock farm. In addition to the SPI (most recent filed here), this has been reported to ANI previously here and here. Just requesting a DUCK block while CUs are able to catch up with the SPI.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Note user also removing maintenance templates. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

User:TarnishedPath re-engaging in wikihounding despite multiple warnings

Despite being warned to remain civil with the sanction being recorded in the log of sanctions, this editor has restarted the uncivil campaign. This started after my topic ban, where a false accusation of sockpuppetry was leveled by a separate user. Please note that an admin commented that "it is rather inappropriate to discuss the conduct of an editor who is banned from posting to this page." When warning MaskedSinger of the potential WP:NPA, WP:GRAVEDANCING, and WP:BADGERING, violation on his talk page, TarnishedPath falsely accused me of violating my topic ban. Again, the admin clarified that "Mkstokes is banned from commenting on this topic; they're not banned from responding to your accusations," warned both editors that they were indeed gravedancing and also warned them that continued harassment would be met with administrative action.

Almost a month later, TarnishedPath showed up on the Fani Willis talk page to participate in an RfC that had a well-documented discussion. I cannot prove that he followed me there. However, his No !vote was similar to other No's that the group had already deemed as an incorrect citation of WP:BLP policies as it pertains to public figures. So I left a note "for closure purposes" with a detailed breakdown of the appropriate reading of the policy. He immediately accused me of a personal attack when there was none. I'll note that when another editor also corrected him on the same point, there was no personal attack accusation.

TarnishedPath then attempted to close the conversation when I challenged him to provide a "cogent argument that I'm wrong." This is despite being a very much involved editor! Thankfully, the author of the article reverted the closure and informed TarnishedPath "please let uninvolved editors close discussions." Soon after, TarnishedPath decided his next course of action was to determine which Survey votes should be invalidated. It is possible there was a good-faith motive and to his credit, he did remove a sockpuppet.

Finally, a separate RfC from a BLP (the origin of my topic ban) was recently closed. The admin included a personal attack and tagged me in the closure. I was concerned so I addressed it on his talk page and came to an amicable resolution. However, TarnishedPath appeared with a new accusation that I violated my topic ban, despite the previous admin making it clear that while I am "...banned from commenting on this topic; they're not banned from responding to...accusations" You'll note that my concern about the personal attack listed two items directly from the WP:NPA:

1. Insults/accusations/other behavior
2. Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid

That was my only concern regarding the consensus as I thought the given numerical majority was being ignored due to my sanction. I was wrong, but that was worked out BEFORE TarnishedPath appeared. As I said to the admin, "It's not that I'm reluctant to communicate with you. Rather, there are specific editors waiting for any opportunity to impose additional sanctions on me." This wikihounding needs to stop. As a precaution, I have muted this user and will never interact with him on any level ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkstokes (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mkstokes: In your first reply to TarnishedPath at that discussion, you said his rationale was "yet one more misreading of Wikipedia policies." If that was just the latest in a series of messages that all made the same mistake, why didn't you make that reply earlier to someone else? I'm wondering because you did a lot of work composing that reply even though you had to have known that no matter how right your words were, TarnishedPath wouldn't seriously consider any of them. City of Silver 21:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: Because the reply wasn't meant exclusively for TarnishedPath. That's why I also said "For closure purposes, please take note" as a call to any admin that would be assigned to close the RfC. Throughout the conversation, I provided very detailed analysis of Wikipedia policies for WEIGHT, as well as RUMOR and RECENTISM. The "No per WP:BLP" !vote provided by TarnishedPath was "yet one more misreading of Wikipedia policies" in the discussion. Others provided explanations why WP:BLP didn't apply, but only one within the RfC, and I felt it needed a more detailed breakdown for this specific case because this instance was the only one within the RfC that insisted an allegation was not enough. A conviction was necessary. As I said in my exchange with him later on, "In short, it's not even about you. I've provided evidence to back up my refutation of the reference." I had no idea he would take a dispassionate, detailed analysis of WP:BLPPUBLIC as a personal attack and I won't speculate why he did in order to avoid casting aspersions. Mkstokes (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver, an extremely pertinent question. Notably during the discussion I didn't quote BLPPUBLIC at all however Mkstokes felt the need to badger me on BLPPUBLIC like I had. TarnishedPath^talk 23:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That is 100% correct TarnishedPath. You only referenced BLP, but it also points out an extremely serious flaw in your editing and understanding of Wikipedia. You quoted BLP, which is an article with a very extensive table of contents, including references BLPPUBLIC, BLPBALANCE, BLPPRIMARY and many many more. Yet after 17 years of editing Wikipedia articles, you are suggesting that your experience tells you a reference to BLP only includes BLPCRIMES - a tiny section of BLP - and you need not be concerned with anything else in the policy? If pointing out flaws in arguments is now to be considered "badgering," then all editors should be sanctions. Mkstokes (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't need or require more badgering from you. It's not welcome. TarnishedPath^talk 00:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A boomerang is required here.

Firstly an explanation for me being on user pages/articles which Mkstokes clearly hasn't considered because they have WP:ABF.

• Yes I did participate in Talk:Fani_Willis#RFC:_alleged_misuse_of_funds, a review of my contribution history will reveal that on the 24th of February when I first participated in that RfC I participated in 5 or 6 other RfCs on BLPs.
• Secondly a review of JML1148's user page where Mkstokes is accusing me of hounding them reveals that I had initiated a thread at User_talk:JML1148#Your_close prior to Mkstokes and that JML1148 had responded to it. I had come to see what JML1148 had written when I noticed the thread that Mkstokes had started.

Now for the boomerang.

• To be extremely clear Mkstokes is topic banned from Nick McKenzie and Peter Schiff both broadly construed per Special:Diff/1197829856#Mkstokes (date 22 January 2024).
• To be extremely clear Special:Diff/1213191446 (date 12 March 2024) is a violation of Mkstokes topic ban. In the diff Mkstokes not only names a subject he is topic banned from, he also specifically talks about the RfC that occurred at the article about the subject and WP:ABF in regards to JML1148 when they claim Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought. In the same diff Mkstokes further talks about the RfC, again when he is topic banned from that subject, claiming Despite claiming "There is consensus to remove the disputed content," it is clear none was achieved to remove said content. If it had been obtained, there would be no concern that "This is going to be a controversial closure, given the numerical majority against removing the content."
• Further it is extremely clear that Special:Diff/1213316863 (date 12 March 2024) is a violation of Mkstokes topic ban. When Mkstokes wrote Then you didn't do proper research before closing the item. is is clear from the context of the conversation that he is writing about an RfC that he should not be writing about and not only is he topic banned he engages in personal attacks on the closer.
• For more troubling issues. It is clear that since Mkstokes has been topic banned that the majority of their edits have been on at Talk:Fani_Willis. A review of their contributions at that talk page reveals behavioural issues including some that needed to be revdelled by an admin on the 24 February because of serious BLP violations.
• I could go on and on, but I am also aware that after I participated in an RfC at Talk:Trumpism, Mkstokes showed up at Talk:Trumpism#Violation_of_NPOV? where they WP:ABF about everyone who edited that article stating Looking for WP:NPOV in an article that is strictly the opinion and indeed the creation of leftists is a fools errand. The first paragraph, exclusively citing leftist secondary sources, is the template for the entire article. Given their behaviour in that thread another editor warned them "Your comments above do nothing towards the aims of article improvement or editing, and instead foster a battleground mentality. Actions like this become evidential should you one find oneself before a place like WP:AE".

TarnishedPath^talk 23:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Two months ago, administrator Ivanvector explained that even though Mkstokes is topic banned from Nick McKenzie, they were allowed to respond at McKenzie's talk page to accusations by you and MaskedSinger that they were sockpuppeting and/or meatpuppeting. Shouldn't the same exception apply in this situation? JML1148, who didn't know about the topic ban, closed that RFC with a comment where they heavily criticized and pinged Mk. And it's arguable that Mkstokes felt obligated to respond since they appear to think JML1148 is an administrator. City of Silver 23:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver, firstly they can respond to accusations without mentioning subjects from which they are topic banned. That's not hard to do. Secondly they went well beyond responding to accusations and were criticising the RfC close at Talk:Nick_McKenzie#RfC:_Lawsuit_between_Peter_Schiff_and_Australian_media itself. That's clearly pissing all over the topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 00:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver also a correction as the discussion at Talk:Nick_McKenzie/Archive_1#Sock_Puppets? shows, I made no accusations of sockpuppeting and I counselled MaskedSinger that there was no evidence of sockpuppeting. Please adjust your comment. TarnishedPath^talk 00:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: "firstly they can respond to accusations without mentioning subjects from which they are topic banned. That's not hard to do." Okay, true, but do they have to? Per Ivanvector, the answer is no. Also, Ivanvector responded to that "pissing" message by deleting it, not by blocking. I honestly think it should have gotten a block but not almost two months after the fact. City of Silver 01:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver To be clear, I'm not referring to something that happened two months ago. I'm not attempting to relitigate that. What Invanvetor was referring to happened two months ago. What happened on JML1148's talk page happened yesterday. Please check the diffs I have provided. TarnishedPath^talk 01:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ps, much appreciated for adjusting your comment above re: sockpuppeting. TarnishedPath^talk 01:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I've read the diffs several times. Please re-read the first half of my previous message, up to the word "Also." City of Silver 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver my apologies for any miscommunication.

The statement if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought that Mkstokes made is not a response to any accusation. It is a criticism of the RfC close at Talk:Nick_McKenzie#RfC:_Lawsuit_between_Peter_Schiff_and_Australian_media itself. It is going well beyond a response to accusations and Mkstokes can't claim that any advice provided to them by Ivanvector covers that. Mkstokes appointed himself as arbiter of what consensus was in that RfC and then lectured the RfC closer about what they had read consensus to be and how the closer had "overturn the previous consensus". That is a blatant and willful violation of Mkstokes topic ban and Ivanvector's previous advice doesn't provide a cover for it.

Again in the statement Despite claiming "There is consensus to remove the disputed content," it is clear none was achieved to remove said content. If it had been obtained, there would be no concern that "This is going to be a controversial closure, given the numerical majority against removing the content." they are not addressing any accusations against them. Again Ivanvector's previous advice doesn't provide a cover for it.

Again in the statement Then you didn't do proper research before closing the item they were not addressing any accusations against them. Again Ivanvector's previous advice doesn't provide a cover for it.

In all three sections of text they are not addressing accusations against them and in violation of their topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

We're talking past each other so I'm going to withdraw. You should appreciate my vote anyway. City of Silver 03:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Be well. TarnishedPath^talk 03:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Notably in the filling of this incident Mkstokes again violates the terms of their topic ban when they write "my only concern regarding the consensus as I thought the given numerical majority was being ignored due to my sanction". To be clear they are directly referring to a RfC on a subject which they are topic banned from. TarnishedPath^talk 00:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. And that RfC was the source of the insult that I responded to with an WP:GRAVEDANCING warning. This is my right. This policy states two critical points that I addressed:

Examples of gravedancing may include:

• Insults/accusations/other behavior directed at editors who are now blocked or banned. This is motivated by the idea that the editor in question won't be able to respond to the comment. This is wrong even if the editor in question never sees it because it contributes to a negative environment that is less likely to encourage editors to work together.
• Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought.

That is the full context of my filling out of this incident as you can see from the links provided above. Not to rehash the closure, but to confirm the closure wasn't performed in contrary to the policy in regards to grave dancing. This full context, which @TarnishedPath keeps leaving out, is essential to the analysis. Had there been no insult and direct ping in the closure (the vast majority of closures contain no personal insults), there would have been no concerns about the whatsoever. The mover would have you believe there was no initiating event and that I did this unprovoked. Mkstokes (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No it is not your right. WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY do not grant you any such exception. Please don't continue to wikilawyer. TarnishedPath^talk 22:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can an admin please take note of Special:Diff/1213791038 and Special:Diff/1213816737 which are both unambiguous violations of Mkstokes topic ban as they have edited the talk page of Nick McKenzie. Both edits have occurred today and notably the second edit is edit warring. This is wilful and deliberate behaviour. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

AE enforcement AE block Doug Weller talk 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, thankyou however I believe there is clear community consensus for something much stronger. TarnishedPath^talk 12:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what is it? I have assumed this won't stop and the next would be an indef. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, see below for a block proposal. I think the arguments made by others are pretty good for an indef regardless of Mkstokes topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I just don't see it. If the vote were for an indefinite or a community ban, I would enact it. Note we haven't heard from Ivanvector yet. I expect him to have something to say. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't blame them for wanting to not be bothered with this. I'll leave this to your best judgment. TarnishedPath^talk 13:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think they will though. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Block proposal (Mkstokes)

Per the evidence I have provided above I propose that Mkstokes be blocked for violation of their topic ban. TarnishedPath^talk 23:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support as mover. It is clear from User_talk:Mkstokes#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban that Mkstokes has already been warned for breaching their topic ban on 22 January 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as accused. This issue was resolved over two months ago and guidelines were provided. Admin @Ivanvector noted at the time "Mkstokes is banned from commenting on this topic; they're not banned from responding to your accusations. ... A topic ban is not an invitation for you to follow the sanctioned user around and point out every mistake they make; ... But please don't harass editors even if they are sanctioned, unless you want to see your names beside logged interaction bans at WP:AELOG." The mover has submitted this new block proposal as retaliation against my concerns about WP:HOUNDING (see above). I was harshly criticized by the closer of the RfC, I responded on his page, and the issue was resolved. I even thanked the editor and gave him The Half Barnstar! I'd suggest this be opposed, closed with prejudice, and TarnishedPath should be properly admonished for wasting your time. Mkstokes (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support As usual, these kind of editors learn things the hard way or not at all. 2600:1011:B18B:F:8A6:99B2:A133:D74A (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Mkstokes relentlessly engages in battleground behavior then, infuriatingly, always explains it as totally unobjectionable. (My favorite was their description of this message as "dispassionate." Really? Really? Look at all those bold words!) The last entry on TarnishedPath's list is damning: that insistence that this site's editorial approach leans far to the left, a claim that has no presence in reality, strongly indicates a tendency to consume media where they are constantly lied to about what leftism and liberalism are.

We've seen countless editors exactly like this. They can't stop picking fights at sensitive articles and because they're experts at using tactics (walls of text, civil POV pushing, link after link after link to policies and guidelines and whatever, DARVO) to wear out anyone who might sanction them, it takes forever to finally send them off the project. If this person is left to their own devices, they will never be able to stay away from starting endless battles they never win. Block Mkstokes for the sake of the good faith editors who will waste countless hours trying and failing to get them to see the light. City of Silver 03:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver What does the media I consume in my personal time have to do with a decision to block me? WOW! 🤯 Mkstokes (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a personal view of Wikipedias editorial values is not some violation worthy of a block. Saying that someone is an “experts at using tactics” because they make long post that quote specific guidelines or post links as if that is unwanted behavior is also blatantly outrageous, isn’t that the whole point of a talk page? To make your argument to the best of your ability by citing specific Wikipedia guildines and point to valid sources?

Friedbyrd (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I listed several examples of problematic behavior. None on their own are reason enough to block. I never said anything different. I gave these examples because I believe they show a pattern of disruptiveness. That's why I support a block.

@Friedbyrd: In your last sentence, you accurately described Mkstokes's behavior but you left out what I believe is the key factor. I think, to make it completely accurate, it would read this: "To make your argument to the best of your ability in response to a user you know desperately wants you to leave them alone by citing specific Wikipedia guildines and point to valid sources?" Do you see the difference? City of Silver 18:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked from what? The topic ban article? The other two articles mentioned? (Fani Willis and Trumpism) Wikipedia? Please be specific. Mkstokes (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support For all of the things that TarnishedPath has already said above, and the numerous allegations of misconduct they made against me on my talk page. Not that TarnishedPath's behaviour has been perfect, but Mkstokes is clearly WP:NOTHERE. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support For all the talk about turning over a new leaf, clearly a leopard can't change its spots. @Mkstokes, it was nice of you to bring the band back together but sadly, this will be the last time. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'll be patient and await feedback from neutral/uninvolved editors. Those with a vested interest typically rush in at the beginning. Regardless, a block is not a permanent ban from editing on Wikipedia. Mkstokes (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  You're 100% correct. As someone who is neutral and uninvolved, I can't let my personal preferences interfere with what's best for Wikipedia. Sure, it will be a lot less interesting without you, but you're unable to play nicely with others which is why I have to support this motion. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  How are you neutral/uninvolved? Your name was specifically mentioned above before you even provided comment. 🤣 Mkstokes (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's your love language. You just can't quit me. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Making impassioned arguments in talk pages is the entire point of Wikipedia talk pages and there is no rule or guideline against this. Of course this will lead to people with strong opinions especially on pages for current events. Moves to block Mkstokes seems like the final move in nothing more than a vindictive and unproductive move in the final part of a long winded wikibeef motivated by opposing views between you to. I would suggest simply avoiding each other as much as possible and certainly not following each others moves in the future.

Friedbyrd (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've not seen one argument for blocking on the basis of "impassioned arguments" or any claims that there is a guideline to such effect. Now if you're going to cast aspersions you need to provide evidence or retract. TarnishedPath^talk 09:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This is in reference to @City of Silver support argument, I wanted to make a “formal” oppose point rather than just reply to their point.

Friedbyrd (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Their support argument doesn't state "impassioned arguments" as as reason for blocking. They noted that Mkstokes engages in battleground behaviour and then always goes onto explain their behaviour as unobjectionable. They go onto explain that their favourite example was Mkstokes claiming a particular episode of battleground behaviour was "dispassionate". I'm paraphrasing City of Silver and it's clear that they are not finding fault for "impassioned arguments". Please don't put words in people's mouths, it's not called for. TarnishedPath^talk 10:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The post in question outright says that he has "a tendency to consume media where they are constantly lied to about what leftism and liberalism are." Its pretty clear that this is not an argument about wikipedia guidelines by a political thing. If you want to do something as extreme as block someone then you should make a much stronger case for it other than that that.

Friedbyrd (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That's less than a sentences worth of two paragraphs of City of Silver's !vote. Singling out half a sentence of superfluous wording doesn't make the rest of his argument not a strong case. TarnishedPath^talk 10:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: There is not a single point in @City of Silver !vote that references the violation of a topic ban, which "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area." Battleground tactics, viewpoints on Wikipedia, picking fights, tactics, and "the sake of the good faith editors" has absolutely nothing to do with the violation of a topic ban. Mkstokes (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Just because I made a proposal to block you on the basis of breaching your topic ban, that doesn't stop others supporting my motion on the basis of other reasons. Battleground behaviour is a perfectly valid reason to put forward in support of a block. TarnishedPath^talk 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, then I would suggest a modification of your statement that explicitly states "Per the evidence I have provided above I propose that Mkstokes be blocked for violation of their topic ban." to include any and all reasons editors deem a ban would be necessary, including non-Wikipedia related concerns about watching the wrong TV show. Mkstokes (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that someone would even bring that up as a reason for a block is ridiculous, not even accounting for it has nothing to do with the posted reason you gave being an alleged ban violation.

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As to your specific point of a topic ban violation, I’m not sure I see that. A topic ban means that a user is not allowed to edit a certain topics or pages, but not a prohibition against referencing them or their talk pages. I don’t see how he violated a ban with this.

Friedbyrd (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Friedbyrd: The TBAN is broadly construed. Writing a large number of (often uncivil) comments on the talk page of a BLP they were very clearly banned from is definitely a violation of the TBAN. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@JML1148 Correction: I did not write a large number of comments on the talk page of a BLP that I was banned from. The comments in question are based on edits done on your talk page that were resolved and closed. If I'm to be banned, at least get the facts correct. Mkstokes (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've got my order of events wrong - I see now that your TBAN came after the RfC discussion was concluded. However, you have still breached your TBAN with the comments on my talk page, and your conduct alone violates WP:CIV and WP:AGF, which would likely result in a block even without the TBAN violation. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. As @Mkstokes had pointed out in his initial post here, he was specifically responding to accusations made against him by @TarnishedPath (reference HERE) And topic/page bans are broad, but per APBAN a user is allowed to comment on the talk page if specifically told so. User @Ivanvector had made it clear that Mkstokes was allowed to respond to these accusations and this would NOT be a violation of his ban. TarnishedPath acknowledged this saying " thank you for the clarification" and user @MaskedSinger also acknowledged this saying "Thank you for your commment. I've got nothing further to add. Saying this, I will continue to keep a close eye on the page and should there be any monkey business, I will let you know." Which seems like a veiled threat of hounding.

The fact that there is now a call to block Mkstokes from Tarnished path on the basis of a deliberate misinterpretation of a page ban after Mkstokes tried to go through the proper channels to resolve their wikibeef is concerning to say the least.

Friedbyrd (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hounding?! Thanks for the laugh. Maybe if you didn't write such nonsense, people would take you more seriously. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments like this are not going to help your argument.

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Following from JML, refer to WP:TBAN and WP:BROADLY. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:APBAN: "An article ban forbids an editor from editing a specific article or set of articles. The text of the ban should state whether the ban includes or excludes the article's talk page."

So yeah, broadly speaking a user would be banned from even engaging in the talk page, BUT as Mkstokes pointed out in their initial post here, he was specifically told that he was allowed to respond to accusations that you made about him from user Ivanvector saying that "Mkstokes is banned from commenting on this topic; they're not banned from responding to your accusations." And you were the first to respond to this saying "thank you for the clarification. All evident HERE So Im wondering what happened, did you forget this or something? Because you seem to acknowledge fully that Mkstokes was allowed to do this but now you are calling for him to be blocked over a misinterpretation of a page ban when you clearly knew otherwise.

Friedbyrd (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no APBAN, there is a TBAN. Please refer to the link I provided. TarnishedPath^talk 10:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As I just pointed out to you, user Ivenvector specifically informed you that Mkstokes was NOT in violation of his ban when he made that comment. You yourself acknowledged this by saying "thank you for the clarification." Because the fact that you are now trying to have a user blocked over a deliberate misinterpretation of a ban is not a good look.

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ivanvector stated two months ago that Mkstokes was allowed to defend themselves when they posted on another editor's talk page about Nick McKenzie when Mkstokes had been accused of sockpuppeting by that editor. Ivanvector did not make statements yesterday clearing Mkstokes to go onto another editor's talk page and lecture them about the close of an RfC on Nick McKenzie. Please do not continue to WP:GASLIGHT. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Mkstokes referencing the initial talk page he was banned from in his post here in order to set the stage is a violation of a ban?

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to discontinue this with you. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I asked you a question in order to clarify your argument. Youre the one who brought up the proposal to have someone blocked which is pretty serious and shouldnt be taken lightly so you should be expected to have a strong argument in favor of it. Like I had said earlier, this seems like a wikibeef between you to and I would advise you both to avoid each other and not follow each others edit history.

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Friedbyrd: You're verging on WP:BLUDGEON. If you don't stop I wouldn't be suprised if you get hit by a boomerang. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

For reference, Mkstokes was banned from the Nick McKenzie page on Jan 22, 2024 and it seems that his last comment on the Nick McKenzie talk page was from Jan 13, 2024. As per Ivanvectors post, Mkstokes is allowed to respond to any allegations against him anywhere that they might show up and the ban is in reference to any discussion of the Nick McKenzie page itself. Unless Mkstokes made any reference specifically to the Nick McKenzie page after Jan 22, 2024 in terms of its quality edit history ect. I dont see how he violated his ban.

Mkstokes referencing the Nick McKenzie page in his initial post here in order to make his case and "set the stage" for his argument would not be a violation of this ban.

Friedbyrd (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

For your own benefit, you need to stand down. You seem in desperate need of making yourself relevant, but all you're doing is making a fool of yourself. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m allowed to make comments on this and threats like this are completely unproductive and more importantly don’t scare me.

Friedbyrd (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Threat?! Lol. It's not a threat, it's advice :) We get that you think you're very important, but you're not ready to sit at the grown ups table. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Low level trolling, veiled threats and harassment are not examples of being at the “grown ups table”

Friedbyrd (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have such a chip on your shoulder and siege mentality. You need a hug! MaskedSinger (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t. Do you have anything of substance to add?

Friedbyrd (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

all cool. we're all here to work together to build a wonderful resource for the generations of tomorrow. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. So, going over the evidence Mkstokes themselves presented above... TarnishedPath contributed to an RFC on a figure closely-connected to a topic area they had been editing heavily in, about an aspect that had received a bunch of recent coverage; Mkstokes concludes (as they concede above, without evidence) that TarnishedPath followed them there, and writes an extremely long reply which devolves into the above as Mkstokes repeatedly demands others WP:SATISFY them in a "prove-me-wrong" fashion. The fact that Mkstrokes has turned this around, in their head, into TarnishedPath hounding them shows that they're just not willing to drop this. Likewise, I wouldn't characterize [124] as addressed it on his talk page and came to an amicable resolution. The common thread in all of these is that Mkstokes is clearly the one unwilling to WP:DROPTHESTICK here; Mkstokes clearly saw the option of engaging anything they consider an "accusation" as an opportunity to continue the dispute and behavior that led to the topic ban. What it was was WP:ROPE, and at this point they've thoroughly hung themselves with it. EDIT: See also this, which is more of the same and shows both the same fixation on TarnishedPath and the same belief that this grudge allows them to ignore their topic ban. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  This seems to be the last of "the band" that MaskedSinger was talking about, though I expect 1 or 2 additional members. We'll see how the survey goes from here. The pattern is expected and unmistakable. Mkstokes (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  No silly. The band is you, me and Tarnished Path. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  But seriously, making allegations of the !vote basically being rigged against them is absolutely unacceptable, particularly when, as far as I can tell, Aquillion wasn't involved with any of the discussions. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Aquillion was directly involved in the RfC on Nick McKenzie talk page. This is the same RfC that you insulted me on, so your statement is patently false. It's doesn't go unnoticed that TarnishedPath purposely didn't provide a notice on the exact page where this request started. This entire block request regarding a WP:TBAN is from the Nick McKenzie talk page, yet he put the notice on the Fani Willis page? Yes, "the band" is indeed active. Neither Aquillion nor MaskedSinger are anywhere on the Fani Willis article, yet almost immediately after TarnishedPath posted his block request, they came over to chime in. Mkstokes (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  They were involved, but very briefly, and didn't interact directly with you. Furthermore, your comment that I insulted you on the RfC is untrue. My exact comment was Multiple editors, particularly Mkstokes, violated Wikipedia's policies and should be ashamed of their actions. All parties, including TarnishedPath and MaskedSinger, showed incivility and a lack of good faith in the discussion. I named you because you were undoubtedly the worst, hence your TBAN from making edits related to Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff. TarnishedPath should have placed an ANI notice on your talk page, rather than Fani Willis, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  if i was incivil it's because Mkstokes drags all he encounters into the gutter with him and this is the only language he understands. He's not here to be constructive - rather he deliberately goes out looking for controversy and to stir the pot and not caring about basic Wikipedia guidelines or manners. When called out on it, he quotes and hides behind Wikipedia policies. I didn't show good faith because he lost the benefit of any doubt a long time ago. It's time to stop giving him any oxygen. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have no need to place an ANI notice on Mkstokes talk because he was the one that initiated this incident against me. Remember this is a boomerang. TarnishedPath^talk 10:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'll partially agree with you on the incivility point. All parties did show "incivility and a lack of good faith in the discussion" and unfortunately are continuing to do so. In fact, MaskedSinger admits there's absolutely no reason for him to be civil or to show good faith at all. Furthermore, he's been aloof and mocking to @Friedbyrd at every point on this page. However, TarnishedPath was specifically warned to be civil and if there are no sanctions placed upon him, this will only embolden him to continue his actions. Mkstokes (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have been exceedingly civil during this process. If you are claiming otherwise, present evidence now or retract immediately. TarnishedPath^talk 11:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  The only reason I'm replying to you now is after the fact because Ill be accused of gravedancing. So let me get in now while I can. I can't wait till you're blocked from Wikipedia. I have no idea why you get off on being so toxic and so obnoxious. What are you even doing here? It's just to be disruptive ; just to upset people. It grew old a very very very long time ago. It's a privilege to be here and to contribute, but yet you just want attention. All this back and forth here all about you. What for? It's a waste of everyone's time. It's a shame - you could have been a good editor. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Mkstokes because you are casting aspersions I will address you. I didn't place a notice on Talk:Nick McKenzie or Talk:Peter Schiff because the nature of this incident is not directly relevant to those pages as it more pertains to JML1148's talk page and Talk:Fani Willis. You'll note that I didn't leave a notice anywhere else than Talk:Fani Willis (go check my contributions, I didn't even inform JML1148). Everyone you've accused of collaborating against you probably has this page on their watch list (like I do). TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath that is the craziest justification I've ever heard. The title of your request is "Block proposal (Mkstokes)." You "...propose that Mkstokes be blocked for violation of their topic ban." What topic am I banned from? Talk:Nick McKenzie or Talk:Peter Schiff. Yet, with a straight face, you now say you didn't leave a notice "...because the nature of this incident is not directly relevant to those pages." You explicitly mention incidents in your "boomerang" related to the TBAN. But okay, if you feel those pages aren't "relevant" then please remove them from your references here. Mkstokes (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to continue this with you and you should discontinue from violating your topic ban over and over by mentioning those pages. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support The battleground mentality present above is enough on its own to block. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. MkStokes appears to have only referenced the forbidden topics tangentially. These are minor infractions at worst and not worthy of a block. Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Block proposal (TarnishedPath) now withdrawn

Based on the details I provided when I created this section, I propose that TarnishedPath be blocked for attempting to use blocking as retaliation.

WITHDRAWN by proposer. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support as motion originator. Note that he was previously warned to "remain civil and to refrain from future edit warring." It's clear that had I not called out his misbehavior, he would not have retaliated by proposing a block. Per WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, "Blocks should not be used: to retaliate; to disparage; or to punish" Furthermore, it is clear that TarnishedPath and Aquillion are colluding with MaskedSinger as what the latter called "the band" (i.e., a group of like-minded editors) to help enforce his proposal. As evidence, I use MaskedSinger's own words where he says "...it was nice of you to bring the band back together but sadly, this will be the last time." It is not a coincidence that all but one of the people who voted together on an RfC referenced previously have been drawn here without any notice being posted on said RfC. Especially since the main point of contention is a WP:TBAN related to said RfC! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkstokes (talk • contribs) 04:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Mkstokes, knowing exactly where this is going, is lashing out in retalition, firing off a bunch of guesses about others' motivations while never truly acknowledging their own bad behavior. The aspersions cast here are incredible although at least I wasn't mentioned this time. There is a wide consensus that this user should be blocked and now's the time to make that happen. City of Silver 04:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Incredibly, unbelievably, Mkstokes just edited Nick McKenzie's talk page again. Admins: this user is begging to be blocked. City of Silver 04:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Just when I thought it couldn't get worse, it did. Mkstokes is digging a very deep hole. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• See User talk:Mkstokes*March 2024, Mkstokes has accepted their block and withdrawn this request. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment No point dignifying this with a response. Mkstokes, you wreak havoc here where ever you go and while it may be entertaining at first, ultimately its exhausting. You need to stop. Maybe you're bored or lonely but coming to Wikipedia and turning it into your online Fight Club (Apologies for breaking first rule) isn't a solution. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose obviously. This is one of the most absurd block proposals I've witnessed recently and this should be weighed into consideration with my block proposal of Mkstokes above. Mkstokes has provided exactly zero credible evidence in support of this proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 09:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is the classic “I didn’t do anything wrong, punish the other guy” trope, which is virtually every case - including this one - is introduced by the guy why can’t see that the problem lies with him, nut everyone else. 2600:1011:B18B:F:8A6:99B2:A133:D74A (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Extremely strong oppose as I see no reason for TarnishedPath to get blocked, and Mkstokes is only trying to do this in retaliation since TarnishedPath had originally created a block request, which I think is already sufficient, but then Mkstokes creates another block request in retaliation, which is more than enough for Mkstokes to potentially get blocked. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose retaliatory block proposal. No evidence has been presented that TarnishedPath's conduct here is violating any guidelines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose. As per above, this is a retaliatory block proposal. Ridiculous. They should know better. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 12:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• See User talk:Mkstokes#March 2024, Mkstokes has accepted their block and withdrawn this request. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing copyright violation editing by user TableSalt43

TableSalt43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was doing some New Page Patrolling this evening when I came across a listing for Battle of Caenina, flagged as having a possible copyright violation. I checked using the CopyPatrol tool, and it was positive. I cleaned up what seemed reasonable, flagged the article for RevDel, and left the "copyvio warning template for new users" on TableSalt43's talk page.

However, just looking further up their talk page, I noticed that this editor has already been warned about copyright violation on no less than five previous occasions, by:

• Diannaa, 7 Jan 2023, for Battle of San Roque (1899)
• Bruxton, 13 Feb 2023, for Battle of Parque (1912)
• Diannaa, again, on 14 Feb 2023, for in-WP copying without attribution from Emiliano Zapata into Battle of Parque (1912)
• Compassionate727, 21 Jan 2024 (twice), for Draft:New York Armory Raid (1775) (since deleted)
• 1AmNobody24, 11 March 2024, for in-WP copying without attribution from Alba Longa into Battle of Alba Longa.

So today's is at least the fourth copyright violation by this user (using external sources), not counting the in-Wiki copy/pastes (which may just have been an oversight).

Finding and dealing with copyright violations involves a fair amount of work for other volunteers, that could be better spent - especially when the user is clearly aware they shouldn't be doing it. Clearly, though, warnings aren't working. Is there anything else that can be done? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't double-checked to see whether the copyright concerns were valid, but just looking at the editors concerned I assume at least some were. The issue is that the editor hasn't replied on more than a couple of occasions. This is a collaborative project, so communication is vital. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like they believe that using {{main}} or {{Further}} is enough for attribution, which isn't. Same thing at Battle of Nomentum. Nobody (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I had concerns when I first encountered this user about their apparent inability or unwillingness to learn how copyright rules or address concerns about their editing. I suspected (and now believe) that a competence block is likely required, although they should of course have a day or two to respond here before we vote on that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have partially blocked TableSalt43 for one week from the article and draft namespaces. I viewed this as the minimum reasonable sanction given the above evidence, and I hope other admins will not interpret this as a barrier to further sanctions if they see those as necessary. I am hopeful to hear from TableSalt43 soon about how they intend to change their practices moving forward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Username and WP:CIR article creation surely points to this being User:TableSalt342. I've opened SPI here. DeCausa (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Beyond copyright violations, there are serious WP:COMPETENCE issues with this editor. This editor is seemingly incapable of distinguishing between fact and myth. See this addition to 754 BC; explanation at Talk:754 BC. The entire series of articles on the "Roman kingdom campaigns", which for disclosure I have nominated for deletion, is just a regurgitation of the primary sources' (WP:PRIMARY; WP:CGR/Guides/Primary sources) description of Roman myths with WP:OR titles used by nobody presented as verifiable fact. He is also seemingly incapable of producing an at all accurate bibliography. Sources are normally not provided; when they are provided, they are to dubious web pages like TLDR History, Heritage History, and a tourism website. Ifly6 (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Nb as the main author of Founding of Rome, I can recognise my own writing (Battle of Rome (753 BC), Battle of Caenina, Second Battle of Rome (753 BC), Battle of Antemnae, Battle of Nomentum) and especially my style of writing footnotes. I don't think any of these additions included attribution. Ifly6 (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Japanese prisoners of war in the Soviet Union

Hello. I thought the death toll was too high. After consulting the history of the article, it turns out to be a probably ill-intentioned modification by "BountyFlamor", dating back several years. The figures have been arbitrarily changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_prisoners_of_war_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=826714102&oldid=811556999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZEK (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a pure content dispute that you could not have discussed with another editor first because this is your first ever edit. Remsense诉 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

DUCK block needed for Qsilver9

Please block Qsilver9 (talk · contribs) as a DUCK sock of Trichards1 (talk · contribs). I don't see a need to open an SPI for something this blatant.
It's been a while since I was up to date on Wikipedia policy, but if you're blocking undisclosed paid accounts, Trichards1 looks the part.
Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

You might say it's "blatant" but I doubt any action will be taken without a little more elaboration on your part. Right now, it's just accusations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: Both those users left similarly frantic, weird messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Smith that read an awful lot like an edit summary left by a third user, User:Ladycoh6776, at Candace Smith; see Special:Diff/1213620663. In that edit, Ladycoh6776 tried to prevent that article's deletion by vandalizing its AfD notification and QSilver9 did the same thing here. City of Silver 20:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Tahir9511

This user has received repeated warnings from multiple editors in the past regarding the addition of OR to BLP. Despite these warnings, they persist in doing so. Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. --Saqib (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide some relevant diffs that exhibit conduct you are complaining about? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The user repeatedly changing the party name without providing any references. PML and PML-Q are two different parties. [125] [126] [127] Additionally, this is SPA (see Special:Contributions/Tahir9511) and the editing history has been disruptive, only adding OR to this particular BLP. Please also refer to the talk page for previous warnings issued to them at User_talk:Tahir9511. --Saqib (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've informed the user about WP:COI requirements (here) due to them having stated that they are the article subject's personal social media team member. Also indeed, PML ≠ PML-Q. El_C 13:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Another warning is not going to help. I believe we should consider blocking paid editors if they're also SPA and if they repeatedly violate BLP policies. Allowing them to continue making edits, especially if they offer nothing useful, only wastes our time. It's evident now that he's a paid editor with no constructive contributions.

There's a similar situation occurring on another BLP (Shafay Hussain ), which happens to be the brother of Salik Hussain. There, another SPA is making similar edits. Whether they're sock puppets of each other is unclear, but User:Hamza_hamz has also declared their COI on their talk page and continues to commit BLP violations despite warnings. --Saqib (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Hamza hamz due that ok i have stopped that didn't actually stop. As for Tahir9511, if any more problems arise, please make another report (or add to this one if applicable) and feel free to ping me to it. Or, if I'm around, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. HTH. El_C 06:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:3alaalquds

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

---

Account opened purely for canvassing other users to a discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Selfstudier: did you forget to notify the user about ANI per big edit notice? Note that ping is not enough. I've done that for you this time. --Stylez995 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I did, apologies and thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:3alaalquds#Indefinite block. El_C 12:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

49.144.102.116 - Mass disruptive editing + revision reversion despite warnings

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

en masse disruptive editing; reverts revisions; all edits disruptive; has not responded to talk page messages despite continuing to make edits and revisions after notices given Personhumanperson (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month: by Ingenuity. El_C 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

For future reference: this looks a lot like a certain LTA from the Philippines who posts certain random rubbish on the very bottom of several different articles (note: it's always on the very bottom), and uses the undo function to quickly restore such edits every time they are reverted. Sometimes they will post and/or write in the edit summary, stuff that tries to be attention grabbing. If you ever see such edit patterns like this from Philippines IPs in the future, follow the Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore principle. It's the best way to deal with them by far. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Skibidigyatt inverted the definition of "Misinformation", and that User page declares intent to lie

I just encountered a change to the Wikipedia article on Misinformation that changed the opening sentence from "Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information" to "Misinformation is information that is real", and made numerous similar changes. This was by User:Skibidigyatt, whose user page includes a comment that, "Any claims that this is on en.wikipedia.org is a LIE." I just created a new section on the associated Talk page with subject: "You will be blocked if you continue with vandalism" saying, "Your 2024-03-14T12:58:15 edit of Misinformation was obvious Wikipedia:Vandalism. I am requesting that your account be blocked. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)"

If in the future I perceive I'm being stalked, I will report that here.

FYI, I've logged over 30,000 edits in various Wikimedia Foundation projects since 2010. I've "watched" many pages and seen lots of crap, though most changes like this have been by anonymous editors. This is the first time I recall having encountered an attempt to completely invert the definition of something -- and it came from someone who has registered a username.

Thanks for your support. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Skibidigyatt#Indefinite block. El_C 14:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked several disruptive accounts containing the character string "Skibidi" and encouage editors to scrutinize any such accounts. I do not think that they are sockpuppets, but rather immature fans of Skibidi Toilet and associated memes. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328, I'll keep that in mind (that didn't originally click for me for some reason). El_C 09:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The other half of the name is also a meme (which I'm not typing as that would set off a filter). – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:CF7:6618:2E02:A732 (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Gyatt outta here! That also didn't originally click for me for some reason, I'm 0:2. El_C 10:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

IP being rude.

on User talk:176.10.147.128 . i have warned them about their vandalism on a blue origin page, they cursed at me in response. Sebbers10 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:AIV ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for repeated death threats. Sebbers10, do not engage in lengthy back and forth banter with trolls. Report that kind of utter trash and move on. Please read Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Cullen, I'd like clarification on your block for "repeated" death threats. Isn't one death threat enough for a block, or is the first death threat deductible? EEng 03:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

My intention, EEng, was not to imply that one such threat would be "deductible" but rather to inform other editors that there was more than one threat. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Darn. EEng 09:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sebbers10, I looked at User talk:176.10.147.128--do you know the saying about wrestling a pig? Drmies (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

never heard of it before, mind telling me about it? Sebbers10 I accept myself as a bisexual! 17:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wrestle with a pig you both end up covered in mud, and the pig will have enjoyed it. Also, I don't understand why you two (you and User:2003 LN6) did not report those edits for rev-deletion, since they were pretty blatant violations of the BLP and other policies. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ill do that next time hopefully, Thank you for reminding me. Sebbers10 I accept myself as a bisexual! 17:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

So is it preferred to report such incidents to oversight? I read that section on WP:BLP and wasn't sure what to do. 2003 LN6 19:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Inflammatory language

I was about to message User:Danielg532 on a routine matter, when I found these prior and extremely inappropriate replies to comments from other users in their talk page: [[128]] and [[129]]. Apparently no action has been taken to correct these serious matters, and given that these no sanctions have been given, I do not trust that they can be trusted to reply to my would-be concern in a civilized manner. Therefore I am requesting some kind of action to be taken in order for the user to realize the consequences of their actions. Borgenland (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the second entry at WP:EMERGENCY#Advice for administrators, the first admin who sees this should indefinitely block Danielg532. City of Silver 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed & revdelled. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree on the indef (and revdels) but not sure I agree with the revocation of Talk Page access. The revdel'd edits were from a month ago. With a revocation of talk page access, there is no way for the user to explain themselves. While we generally revoke talk page access per WP:EMERGENCY, we do not always do so and I'm not sure it was the right move in this case. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Considering Borgenland had very good reason to worry they'd be targeted right now by the same sort of crap that got revdelled, I think Danielg532 earned their way entirely out the door. Plus, they're not precluded from getting unblocked. A successful request on their talk page should also succeed via UTRS. City of Silver 20:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I don't block often, so happy for more opinions. Given that the comments took place on their user talk, and that this and other rudeness had been the standard response to people on their talk page, I do believe it was quite likely to be repeated after a block. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #86219 is open. @Femke: you might want to restore TPA to facilitate the unblock discussion. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Femke, you were right to revoke talk page access and you've been given no fair reason to restore it. Such a move would not be in compliance with WP:EMERGENCY, which doesn't have an exception for when attackers like Danielg532 need others to "facilitate the unblock discussion" or anything like that. Are we really trying to make it easier for that person to resume editing? Come on. If Deepfriedokra, Danielg532, or anyone else considers the UTRS process too inconvenient, leave the block in place and be done with it. City of Silver 02:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, any editor who urges another editor to take their own life should remain blocked for many years. Cullen328 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@City of Silver: As I am probably second only to Yamla in handling of UTRS appeals, I think I'm well suited to recognize its limitations. FWIW, I think the appellant is now well aware that they cannot expect to be unblocked any time soon. That they have entered WP:zero tolerance land.Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding link to "Disruptive editing patterns by Danielg532" from January. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

See this IP which is making the grammar incorrect at Georgetown football, 1874–1889 while insulting anyone trying to correct it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

L + Soccer Mom+ my grammar is more right than you 174.233.17.11 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, WP:AIV is the best place for blatant vandals like this. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Useless comment from IP in question removed. Courtesy report filed at AIV. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

IP blocked 31h by Ser Amantio Di Nicolao. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 19:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the IPs comments as it proves the point of the filing. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Thanks for this - I needed a laugh today. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of their edits were funny, but transphobia and PAs aren't. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 19:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dudhhr: Sorry - I meant it amuses me that people like this seem to think their vandalism matters. Their actual edits amuse me not at all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Took it over to meta.wikimedia, now globally locked. Yeesh. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: All over a handful of grammatical disagreements. Oh, well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Revoke TPA

Hey, can someone revoke TPA of this VOA? They are abusing it. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 19:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done, and they didn't get a block notification in the first place, so added one. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't always leave block notices or warnings. When the edits are clearly deliberately attacking and the editor is very clear on what they are doing, I don't waste time. I just block and go. It serves no purpose to do more. Canterbury Tail talk 20:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Canterbury Tail. Vile, contemptible trolls should immediately be shown the door, and the door should be slammed behind them. Telling them how to appeal just encourages more disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't block many editors but I disagree. Leaving a notice explaining why they were blocked is just good practices for admins. And if they still have talk page access, not supplying a reason for a block just invites more questions and appeals. But it's an area where there is clearly a variety of points of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong, if they've made a single constructive edit, or the edits can be construed as just tests or not sure how Wikipedia works, they always get notices and the like. For editors whose entire history is racist/homophobic deliberate disruption, engaging is just the attention they're after. Those editors will never be productive and are not worth wasting a second of time longer than ensuring their disruption is at an end. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Leedsunited128

Leedsunited128 (talk · contribs · count)

Looking at this users talk page, user is having/ignoring problems with posting edits without sources. I just reverted this and left this warning. Posting here for input and such. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Leedsunited128#Indefinite block. El_C 06:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring over orgins of a topic

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

Feels a bit retaliatory, and part of ongoing refusal to accept consensus, or to recognize what constitutes original research. This recent filing is relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Soothsayer79, this is a content dispute. This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Please accept consensus and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Objectivescholar

Apparently for the past few years, the user Objectivescholar (talk · contribs) has continuously changed statistics without citing a source and blanked content on dozens of pages related to Nigeria. There appears to be a concerted effort by this account to remove or diminish notes of non-Fulani ethnic groups and their languages along with false/unsourced edits to pages about ethnicity and religion in Nigeria all while employing false edit summaries.

Their most blatant form of vandalism is to erase certain ethnic groups from pages. The account has been doing this since its creation in 2022, with its first set of edits being to remove 8 ethnicities from the Gombe State introduction and blank the entire (sourced) language section under the false summary of "I added more tourist attractuons". While Nigerian demographic data is difficult to come by, it is clear that these edits are not being made based on new information as they don't even change the sourcing.

Other problematic edits include the removing sourced religious and HDI data under the summary of "added number of languagaes", replacing cited information about religious violence with unsourced information on a "cordial relationship" under the summary of "added more data. removed irrevelant and uncited information", removing sourced population statistics with the summary of "added up to date references, improved citations, corrected misinformation, etc", and changing a litany of information without changing sources while blanking information on religion, castes, and extremism. Other impacted pages include the Sokoto Caliphate (blanking of paragraphs on slavery) and Billiri (not all of the edit was bad but it was clearly biased with the "Christian extremist part") pages.

On other pages, the account went on a months-long edit warring campaign to unilaterally change the entire Middle Belt page (again, in an ethnically-charged manner) before being indefinitely blocked from the Nigeria page for edit warring (although it's unclear how much were POV violations).

This user needs to be blocked, ideally permanently, as this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-charged, unsourced edits. Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you mistaking me for another person? It is obvious that you are. I can't remember making some of these edits. Until you provide evidence, then you are a bloody lie. All I can remember among these was with the Nigeria page where I changed the ethnic statistics to reflect the source cited. The source cited contain different data to that written on the page. And of course! The page was restricted in my own favour to prevent you and other people from vandalism. And since then the accurate ethnic statistics remained there.

About removing language, I did not. I am a native of the state and a Wikipedia editor mistook Gombe State in Nigeria with Gombe, Kinshasa, a town in Kenya. Those languages are Kenyan languages and have nothing to do with Nigeria talk less of Gombe State.

I cannot remember giving any "false summary", cite what you think is a " False summary " and we will discuss it.

About being "biased", you are the one being biased there. You are not from Gombe, you don't know anything yet you are arguing with me. A person who kill, maimed and destroy in the name of religion cannot be called Extremist? There are tons of Wikipedia pages containing the term and there is nothing wrong with that. We are objective scholars and we must say things the way they are. Not everything should conform with your views and opinions. You just want me blocked for contents you don't like? Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an "opinion page" of a newspaper. Objectivescholar (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Objectivescholar: At the very least, removing large swathes of sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content without proper reason is absolutely unacceptable. Furthermore, masking it with misleading edit summaries, such as here, is very poor conduct. I haven't dug through all of the diffs Watercheetah99 listed here, but it's looking pretty dire. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Which "large swathes" of "sourced" content are you talking about? And which "replacement" was unsourced?

There is no masking whatever. That's the original content before vandalism. The contemporary edit summaries were as explained. Objectivescholar (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Objectivescholar: please give clear examples of what you're talking about. In this edit [130] I see you removing a lot of language data. You claim it is because an editor confused Gombe in Kenya with Gombe State in Nigeria. Yet when I look at the sources, all of them seem to specifically be about Nigeria.

Indeed you removed the languages by LGA, and with Ethnologue is not the best source, it's clearly referring to Nigeria which makes sense since these are local government areas in Gombe State so it's very difficult to be referring to data from Kenya or anywhere else when your details refer to specific places within Gombe State.

Likewise when I check out Dadiya, Jara, Kamo, Pero, Tangale, Tera, and Waja that you removed, every single one of those articles refers to Nigeria not Kenya. Actually most of them specifically refer to Gombe State as well. And while wikipedia articles are not RS, it makes me strongly suspect the info was somewhat accurate and these are indeed languages and peoples which are present to some degree on Gombe State. So what evidence do you have that anyone confused Gombe in Kenya with Gombe State?

What seems even more surprising is you your referred to a town in Kenya but then linked to our article on Gombe, Kinshasa which as you might guess refers a Gombe in Kinshasa i.e. in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so has nothing to do with Kenya (or Nigeria of course). Looking at Gombe, we don't even seem to have any article on a Gombe in Kenya, so if one exists it seems small enough that no one has written an article yet.

While I appreciate our coverage on Africa can be spotty, for various reasons I suspect our coverage on Kenya is one of the better ones. I mean looking at our article, the Gombe in Kinshasa is also quite a small place relatively. So either way I'm very surprised if an editor would confuse the places, or you can even get that much data specific whatever other Gombe you're thinking of. So your claim is even more confusing.

I'll be blunt here, to my mind when combined with your highly misleading edit summaries, it's looking to me a lot like you just make stuff up so you can have your way and so should probably be indefinitely blocked. If this isn't the case, please better explain your edits.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Unlike other editors who just want to shut me off because I refused to allow their opinions on Wikipedia articles, your intention is to argue and seek clarification. Thanks for that.

To start with, I am a professor of languages and linguistics. I am one of the stakeholders who compiled the languages spoken in the state by NOA. I am also an indigene of the area.

Secondly, the languages currently on the page has not always been like that. I removed the Kenyan languages long ago. The editor was ignorantly accusing me of removing "non-fulani" groups which is not factual. The ethnic groups you mentioned Dadiya, Pero, Tangale, Waja are still on the page. I also clearly stated where we are found.

About languages, some of those are not correct. For example, the languages Kyak and Diko do not exist here at all. Tso is an eastern Nigerian language and has nothing to do with Gombe. Dera, Dza and Loo are Adamawa languages. All these languages have their seperate Wikipedia pages where they are explained in details. You can check that for yourself. Awak is not the name of a language but that of a mountain. The language spoken there us called Yebu. Gombe was created out of Bauchi State. Jara is now a Bauchi State language and not Gombe which is a new identity. There are extinct languages like Moo and Centuum but I still retained them in the list.

The Editor should just go and get educated and stop accusing me of removing "non-fulani" groups out of ignorance and or false edit summaries in the name of "adding more languages". Objectivescholar (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Objectivescholar, personal attacks are not going to help your case, and could get you blocked on their own. You are repeatedly deleting 21 references and the associated content at Fula people. I have issued you a new 3rr warning, but as you are already indeffed from the Nigeria page, following your previous edit warring, you should not need another warning. - Arjayay (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• I changed Objectivescholar's parblock to all of Article space. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion using IP

Taeisawesome21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2601:14C:8001:ABD0:6063:466F:2423:A6B6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Previously User:Butlerblog had done an investigation (archived link) and found that Taeisawesome21, who was banned, was using User:2601:14C:8001:ABD0:6063:466F:2423:A6B6 to evade their ban.

I've since found a second IP that is being used to evade the ban of Taeisawesome21, User:73.134.59.131. Both of these accounts edit similar pages.

Here are a few examples of them making the same or very similar edits:

Edit of Sight Unseen (TV series), Taeisawesome21's edit. The IP's nearly identical edit

Edit of List of The Roku Channel original programming. In both edits, they claim the show Malpractice (TV series) has been renewed despite no evidence of that. Taeisawesome21's edit. The IP's edit

Edit of Family Law (Canadian TV series), Taeisawesome21's edit and the IP's edit

Therealteal (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks: User talk:73.134.59.131#Block. El_C 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Automated edits by रोहित साव27

Can someone look at रोहित_साव27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and get them to pause their automated edits with Wikipedia:SWViewer? My edits were made over the course of several hours and got reverted in a flash for alleged promotion to Peter Brown (historian). I know I'm only an IP, but they are reverting indiscriminately and not responding to talk page messages. 73.37.211.177 (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with 73.37.211.177; it is concerning that for the rapid rate at which रोहित साव27 reverts others, they are disproportionately unresponsive to the many ongoing good-faith complaints and queries lodged at their talk page. Left guide (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I just thought to check, and found out that they were also editing and reverting in multiple Wikis at once [131](note that that tool only shows the most recent 20 edits per wiki).

That's... how good at multi tasking must you be to be able to do that? – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:CF7:6618:2E02:A732 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the reversions of IP edits are out of control. I can see the article is in many ways promotional but that was not a remotely satisfactory reason for reverting your edits. I can't make out what SWViewer can do. Could it be assessing an article as a whole and then reverting recent IP edits? It's really sad to see thoughtful IP editors assuming the reversions have some proper basis and enquiring about the rationales. Is SWViewer ever of any benefit? Thincat (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. First of all I would like to apologize for the mistakes I made. I am new to English Wikipedia and am not well aware of the rules here. I apologize and accept my mistake for your troubles.--रोहित^Talk_with_me 12:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@रोहित साव27: This was your first ever edit on English Wikipedia: that's hardly "new". Bazza 7 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: Yes, you are right but I have done most of the work on Hindi Wikipedia and just a few days ago I have started working actively on English Wikipedia.--रोहित^Talk_with_me 15:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Samral curses users via email

@Samral is harassing me and other users via email. Please turn off email sending. He's a sockpuppet and has no place here anymore. 176.218.17.226 (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

And he constantly disrespects, Sysop @Xaosflux. You must resolve this situation urgently. 176.218.17.226 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Any checkusers around that want to look in to this? There is an original CU block, I extended the block to remove TP previously. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Samral isn't using Special:EmailUser on English Wikipedia. I disabled receiving email on every project but English Wikipedia because I was getting too many death threats from throwaway accounts on Meta, Commons, Wikidata, etc. There's no reason someone from Thai Wikiquote or Romanian Wiktionary needs to email me. I created a global user page on Meta that gives instructions on how to contact me. If anyone wants to cut down on the amount of harassing emails they receive, that's what I'd suggest they do. However, IP editors can't be harassed through email. I would suggest that people who make complaints about editors at admin noticeboards use their account. If you feel you need to make a complaint anonymously, you can contact a CU privately, or you could email Arbcom. If you're being harassed cross-wiki, you should contact a Steward. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

General Note: If someone gets a wikimail, it should state the name of the project it was generated from in the footer - so you can follow up with the appropriate admin team. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

ThecentreCZ - Personal Attacks and Sourcing

I would like to report @ThecentreCZ: for personal attacks and their persistent refusal to provide sourcing despite multiple users requesting it.

Below are personal attacks I have found from just their talk page:

1. 1 Referring to me as the "ruiner of information" for requesting sourcing.
2. 2 Insulting somebody in Czech "protože jsi otravný trudeauovec" (because you're an annoying Trudeau) and then trying to say that it was not an insult [132].
3. 3 They were previously informed of their civility against User:Buidhe back in July 2020.

ThecentreCZ's sourcing problems have been a years long dispute that has involved multiple editors.

1. 1 User:Buidhe informed them of their poor sourcing and informed them that they could be sanctioned for it. ThecentreCZ's response was "Lol you are such a admin".
2. 2 ThecentreCZ was told to not add unsourced materials to List of suicides.
3. 3 A conversation between User:Number 57 and ThecentreCZ regarding sourcing on the page Progressive Liberal Party (Bulgaria). ThecentreCZ stated that "On foundation date verifiability doesn't apply" and "this radical sourcing purges are nonsense".
4. 4 A conversation between me and ThecentreCZ about the sourcing for List of banned political parties in which he claims that lists do not need sourcing. Two other users have also brought up his actions in regard to this post. User:Lepricavark and User:GR Kraml

Jon698 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that administrative action against ThecentreCZ is also being discussed separately above in this section. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This should probably be combined under the above thread as a new subsection. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This narcissistic comment on MicroSupporter's Talk Page sounds like a Star Wars Villain berating one of his subordinates, not a good faith Wikipedia user. As someone involved in the discussion at Liberland, I consider him to be the weakest link in the discussion there. Support sanctions as I cannot under any circumstances support his current behaviour. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)