Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131

Disruptive edits by IP 85.196.176.223

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

85.196.176.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in a serie of edit reverts that can be considered disruptive regarding the GERB page. More specifically, the user targeted the Electoral history of the party, modifying the represented figures in a way that fit the best his personal opinion but are in contrast with the convention regarding political parties on Wikipedia. The convention for the electoral history of parties running within a coalition is the following:

• adding number and percentage of votes regarding the coalition as a whole (often highlited via notes specifiying the coalition), since figures for individual members are usually not available
• adding number of seats regarding only the individual party and not the coalition as a whole (the number of seats regarding the coalition as a whole should be added in the corresponding page, when existing)

Examples of the application of these implicit rules can be found all across Wikipedia, I'll bring as examples another Bulgarian case (the Democratic Bulgaria coalition and its member parties) and a case from another country (the Latvian New Unity coalition and its member parties). However, the user has independently decided that GERB's coalition member, SDS, is not active enough for GERB to be subject to these rules. Despite bringing up the issue in detail in his talk page (here), he kept reversing the page according to his personal preferences (the latest occurrence being today). To prevent this from happening again, and for this useless sequence of edits to come to an end, I'm requesting to restrict this user's permissions to edit the page in question. Thanks, Fm3dici97 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think someone needs to nicely note that when people disagree, we discuss it on the article talk page. If we can’t find an immediate consensus, then we bring in more editors to look at the situation.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I usually would go through the same routine, but since the user in question decided to stop participating in the conversation we were having in his own talk page and went straight into reversing my edits once again, while intimating me to stop interfering, I simply assumed that solving the dispute through talk pages was something he was no longer considering. Fm3dici97 (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Assuming tends to be a bad idea when you're coming to one of the administrative noticeboards, or complaining about another editor's behaviour in general. As it stands, from the point of view of ANI, all we can see is two editors edit warring with both of them refusing to discuss the dispute since the article talk page hasn't had editor comments on anything since 2014! Far better to make the effort to start an article talk page discussion, where remember ultimately discussion should take place. Then you can actually point to attempts on your part to discuss which went unreciprocated. Maybe other editors will even join and and assuming you're right and so they support you, you have evidence that the editor is not only editing without discussing, but that they appear to be editing against consensus. (Of course maybe they won't support you, and the other editor won't need to say anything for you to realise you're wrong or at least your view is not the clear consensus one.) If you fear an editor is too new to know about talk pages, you're free to message them on their talk page pointing them to the discussion, as well as mention it in any edit summaries. Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I left a note about article talk pages on the IP's talk page. Note that I'm not an administrator so I don't make any official decisions here.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both. I'll try to bring up the issue in the article talk page and hope for a better response and/or more involvement. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem with user

I need to raise an issue with ČugaĎ, a user who repeatedly goes around adding "[Country] films" and "Horror films" categories to films that are already in "[Country] horror films" categories, in defiance of duplicate categorization rules. Even more importantly, they've now ignored three prior requests to stop doing that — they stopped for a while after I threatened to take it to ANI the third time, but then they started up again yesterday. In addition, they're sometimes also adding films to questionable genre categories that aren't properly supported at all, such as filing Comedown in Category:Comedy films and Lead Me Astray in Category:Fantasy films even though neither the articles' text nor their IMDb profiles suggest that those genre labels would be accurate in any way.

Basically, it's becoming tiresome to have to clean up after them, but asking them to stop clearly isn't making them stop. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a topic ban on categorization is warranted. CugaD seem to be an otherwise productive editor who just cannot grasp categorization guidelines. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 14:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, edits otherwise identical to ČugaĎ's, adding "[Country] films" and/or "Horror films" categories to films that are already in the appropriate "[Country] horror films" intersection, are now happening by the hand of logged-out IP 204.68.105.89. So clearly ČugaĎ didn't get the message, which was "stop doing this" rather than "log out and then keep doing this". Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

PamD and I'm feeling intentionally stalked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi I am starting to get quite annoyed with being stalked by @PamD: who I feel is intentionally abusing their edit powers and WP:Stalking and WP: Harassing me. I'm not sure what to do about this but I am wanting to report the incidents here..please note I'm using a mobile to post this. These following sentences are from her and they are to me against WP:Respect.

""For some reason I wondered what you are doing these days and this was the first edit I looked at. I hope you're editing carefully - I won't look further as I've got other things to do today." -

And

"This particular editor tends to remove other editors' contributions like this quite often."

On the pages User talk:DragonofBatley and Parade, Leamington Spa.

I really don't know how to feel about this but feel annoyed at being stalked by her and her trying to pick faults with me mostly then other editors. It seems to be only me they have interest in picking fault with on random.articles.and throwing the whole "Damaging the encyclopedia" term at me like I'm the main cause out of millions of editors. I'm tired of it and.just.want to be left alone and not bothered by them further..ive tried before to ask her to leave me alone but she carries on posting reverting and stalking me.

Please can other editors help me with being able to stop this stalking. I've made them aware of this and asked them to respond on this post. Thanks. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• @DragonofBatley: Isn't the first message you quoted here PamD explicitly promising not to stalk you? And whether or not you're offended by the words in the second quote, are they accurate? Because PamD believes she's found an ongoing problem with your contributions. That means she might be violating policy if she didn't monitor your edits for issues. CityOfSilver 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• There've been numerous times I've run into problems with one editor's contributions, then found another problem, and then another ... and so I've done a full examination of that person's editing history, and sometimes it turns up that the editor in question has committed pervasive errors needing correction. Many veteran editors have done similar examinations many times. Ravenswing 01:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
• By my count, PamD has started 59 new sections on DragonofBatley's talk page since May 2021 (averaging more than two per month over the past two years), and made 158 edits to that talk page in total. I have no doubt these are all in good faith and in an effort to improve the quality of articles, but I think I'd also be quite annoyed if I was in DragonofBatley's shoes. It's not like there are major policy violations at play here that warrant this kind of monitoring – DragonofBatley occasionally might make a mistake when editing articles, as we all do, like accidentally swapping the units in the {{convert}} template, or omitting a single verb. This is normal. It is part of working on a collaborative encyclopedia. It will be fixed in time by other editors and readers. It does not require these bimonthly scoldings, put under section headings like "Carelessness", "More carelessness", "Careless edits", "Carelessness" (again!), and "Careless please do read". Sometimes these aren't even mistakes, like simply PamD thinking that DragonofBatley hasn't added enough links in other articles after creating a new one, or felt that DragonofBatley should have tagged unsourced text with {{cn}} rather than removing it (this is simply a matter of editing preference). Again, I fully believe PamD is attempting to be helpful here and ensure these articles are high-quality. But this kind of long-term observation of other's edits (and repeated talk page posts) only really works when it's a mentor-mentee relationship where both parties are willing, and DragonofBatley is clearly uncomfortable. DanCherek (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's certainly very strange conduct to repeatedly leave comments at single editor's talk page over a longer period of time. I haven't looked through DragonofBatley's edits, but I agree that PamD is acting in good faith. I don't think much is needed at the moment other than to politely ask PamD to be more careful with her wording in the future. If there are major systemic issues in DragonofBatley's edits, that's a different issue that I am willing to discuss. @DragonofBatley: Would you be interested in a mentorship from @PamD: provided she is willing to do so? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  How could PamD be more polite when responding to an edit (diff) which adds a blatant error to an article? Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  That's true. As I said, I didn't look through the edits by DragonofBatley. If there are long-term issues of blatant mistakes, than I don't think any action is needed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hi I don't want a mentorship from PamD. I've already got one I feel with editors like Crouch, Swale, Eopsid and others who collaborate with me on geographical related articles. I'm sorry if others feel she is doing things in good faith but please try to understand that I haven't even been bothered by her in weeks and then out of the blue "Just thought I'd see what your up to these days and hope your not making bad edits". I'm not a petulant child 🚸 who needs an editor to hold my hand. I want to be able to edit on articles of interest to me. I admit I at times (not often) remove original research but normally it's the present tense or out dated articles. As wiki isn't written like advertising or storytelling in terms of a towns shops or influences without sources to back them up. Or a housing development was built on a Greenfield with no relevancy.

  I challenge certain editors if I feel they make unfair reverts or completely trample over my contributions without a second thought. Most the stuff I remove is either subjective or irrelevant like for example. I removed United Kingdom from Hereford because we had Hereford Herefordshire and England for it's railway station article. No other city uses UK because it's England the country. And I always change the km to mi because we use miles.in UK and not km like in America or Canada etc.

  I am careful with my edits but I'm being randomly monitored when there's no need for it and I don't see other new editors being as heavily monitored as I know a few new ones from before. Please just ask PamD to leave me alone and id rather not have a mentorship as I've been on here long enough now. DragonofBatley (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  Do you acknowledge that your edit introduced an error into the article? PamD fixed that and alerted you so you would know for future edits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  What's wrong with a revert edit summary? JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I would understand the talk page notes if they were repeatedly inserting the mistake, or had been doing across multiple articles. However, I don't think that's happened. I think all that needs to happen here is that PamG is politely told not to pester him. Revert if they want, but just leave an edit summary. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'd prefer that in all honesty. I just want to stop the pestering it's not fair to me as I'm just trying to contribute to this site and work well with most editors but PamDs recent comments are just not on and I'll be glad if someone higher could tell her to please leave me alone. I asked her to leave me alone before but she's obviously ignored it and that last post was not on with Witney on Wye on my talk page or the language. DragonofBatley (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  DragonofBatley, I appreciate that you're feeling harassed; is what you are saying that you'd prefer just a ping in the edit summary when PamD or someone else reverts you? Taken in isolation, that last section on your user talk was quite polite: you made a mistake, PamD reverted it and then went to your user talk to explain why it was wrong and what you can do in future to resolve the issue. They also fixed it in their next edit to the article, as they said at your user talk, so you can see how it works. A revert with a ping is the default output when using rollback, so is usually felt to be a bit brusque, but I do appreciate that PamD has posted rather a lot on your talk page. So would you rather just the revert ping? Unfortunately, it looks as if you don't understand what was wrong with that edit; by switching the "km" and the "mi", you changed the distance from 25 km to 25 miles, which is incorrect. Someone fixing that mistake, no matter who they are, is maintaining the encyclopaedia. And PamD tried to explain it to you. Please instead use the "order=flip" parameter next time you want to fix a convert template that has the km value first. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• I think I'm expected to reply, but left it a day to see what other responses there were.
  As far as I know I first encountered DragonofBatley (DoB hereafter) in May 2021 when Lincolnshire was on my watchlist and I saw removals of two long-standing paragraphs of unsourced text(diff, diff), which had never been tagged as unsourced. It looked as if this might have been WP:POINTy editing, as an unsourced addition by DoB had been reverted 10 minutes earlier. The text DoB removed was plausible and inoffensive (not BLP, political, attack, etc), though vague and in need of sourcing, but {{cn}} would have been more constructive. I posted on their talk page. It's difficult to trace the talk page history as they don't archive, but just delete, but this version has the "Lincolnshire" post and a couple more below where I spotted problem edits and offered constructive advice.
  DoB is an experienced and enthusiastic editor. All their edits are done in good faith, but it does look as if they don't check what they've typed, or check their links: garbled sentences, CofE churches in RC dioceses, that recent edit which moved Whitney-on-Wye by 9 miles because they didn't understand how the {{convert}} template works. They work mainly on English settlements and railway stations, and our paths cross quite naturally from time to time: see User_talk:DragonofBatley#Larry_Steinbachek and St Chad's Church, Rochdale. But as Ravenswing pointed out above, when an editor sees a pattern of problematic edits they will often look at the other edits made by that editor. I've used talk page posts rather than just reverting, in the hopes of helping this editor to improve their editing.
  Yes, there were a series of talk page posts last year headed "Carelessness" etc, but "Careless please do read" was DoB's heading, and I backed off from pointing out so many careless edits: the problem has diminished, but it hasn't gone away. My recent posts on their talk page have included suggesting how to increase readership and pageviews of an article they had created, and pointing out (using a "boiler-plate" message I keep in my sandbox) the brilliant gadget which helps prevent one from linking to dab pages accidentally.
  I still think that the habit of removing longstanding article content because it's unsourced, without first leaving a {{cn}} template to encourage other editors to source it, is a net negative to the encyclopedia and should be discouraged. Doing so immediately before taking an article to AfD seems particularly unhelpful. I still think that editors should check what they type to make sure it makes sense, and check their links. I wish DragonofBatley well with their editing but I wish they would, still, take a little more care. I have tried to protect the encyclopedia from some of their poor edits, and to persuade them to edit more carefully.
  I probably shouldn't have added the second paragraph of my post about Whitney-on-Wye, though it explains honestly how I came across that article. The encyclopedia benefitted: I corrected DoB's mistake. I stand by the first paragraph: I found and fixed a factual error and explained how to achieve their aim (imperial-first measures) by using the "order=flip" parameter to the template, so that next time they find a similar situation they will know how to do it properly. PamD 12:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, and please be honest as I've no choice but to take you at your word: Do you ever check DoB's contributions "out of the blue?" Or do you only view their contributions after 'fixing' one of their edits or otherwise encountering them? In other words, do you ever initiate contact with them by checking their contributions. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @GabberFlasted My talk page post quoted above makes it quite clear that I did indeed have a look at their most recent contribution "out of the blue", and thereby rescued Whitney-on-Wye from the misinformation DoB had accidentally introduced. Why would I not be honest ... don't you normally take editors at their word? It's hardly polite to show such a lack of WP:AGF. PamD 07:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  @PamD:I wanted a positive affirmation and not an interpretation, hence asking directly. I understand you may feel frustrated or defensive being the subject of an AN/I thread but please be careful of making such accusations of bad faith. Just as you wish for others to assume that you act in good faith, you should I'd ask you to assume others are acting in good faith. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @GabberFlasted Please look again at your words: "please be honest as I've no choice but to take you at your word". That reads, to me, as suggesting that I may not be trustworthy (you'll have to take me at my word, for want of any other choice ... meaning, for want of something more trustworthy than what I say), and that I might not be honest unless specifically asked to be. What else can it mean? Perhaps it was a careless choice of words, but it seemed offensive. PamD 21:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @PamD You might have seen this already, but there have been a few recent Village Pump threads on the question of whether unsourced content should be removed or tagged. It's very much an ongoing debate, with some feeling that WP:V necessitates removing that material, and some arguing that adding citation tags is the equivalent of kicking the can down the road or "making numbers go up." (I don't agree with that one....) Some people (though nowhere near the majority) have gone so far as to argue that every undersourced article should be soft-deleted outright in their entirety. Given all this, I don't think it's necessary or a good idea to tag someone's talk page every time they do something that's allowed under policy and that many editors prefer. 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Gnomingstuff Thanks for pointing me to that interesting discussion. I skimmed through it and note the wide range of views, but don't think I saw much, if any, support for deleting long-standing uncontroversial content without previously tagging it with {{cn}} and without, apparently, trying to source it oneself.

  "every time"? The only time I have mentioned this to DoB this year was when they removed content from my nearby village of Milnthorpe, including sourced content on local industries and material such as "It has one secondary school, Dallam School, and one primary school, Milnthorpe Primary School.": easily verifiable, and providing the only link from the village article to its notable school. Would anyone (OK, would any significant proportion of editors) really argue that removing that sentence improved the encyclopedia? PamD 07:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• PamD is one of the most polite and patient editors I have come across, DragonofBatley is not. If you want to see why someone needs to correct his edits just look at the page history of any article he has created and the careless editing that has to be corrected after his initial start. He takes offence because he has not followed the advice offered. I am also persona non grata so I now avoid him as I really can't be bothered anymore.Esemgee (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Esemgee, I'm not a nice editor? Only you think that, doesn't make it factual. I'm actually a very nice.editor but I have had enough of being stalked. That's the difference. I didn't ask for a popularity contest. You've so far.broke. your avoiding me and you haven't only just now avoided me. You did so months ago and had a go at me for politely asking you to stop removing sourced articles on Dewsbury like minster town and having a go at me for asking you to stop removing sourced facts. Your language then was quite rude but I didn't make an issue of it cause I'm better than that. And you felt like getting personal on Skegness talkpage so I again did better by asking you and Noswall59 to stop engaging further with me because you got a bit personal and vindictive. but you still have now. So yeah 👍 nice try at trying to make me a vile editor by saying I'm not a nice editor. As far as I'm concerned your not a nice editor either. You were vile to me on many talk pages and didn't like I stood against you for it. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've also worked with PamD a bit lot though not much recently. Pam has used the word "careless" with be in 2022 which involved adding a separate paragraph about a topic already covered above. As far as I'm aware its not a common mistake I make so it probably didn't even need pointing out per WP:NOTPERFECT. I don't know too much about the problems with DB's editing but unless serious formatting or grammar errors are frequently occurring its just best to generally just quietly fix the errors. While I appreciate PamD's support/advice these kind of words may put some people off contributing, I don't find it offensive (though it do think its a tiny bit uncivil) but some users may find it offensive especially when Pam has made errors herself. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks fso much for your input, @Crouch, Swale. I have worked with you a few times before in the past on Districts, UAs for places like York, Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Warrington and Chesterfield among other articles. You know and I know, we both have helped to slightly strengthen the geographical sides of WIkipedia through creating more civil parish and district/settlement/ua articles. I also created articles for the likes of Borough of Chesterfield, City of York and City of Peterborough through thorough research and fact checking.

  It is edits like this that get overlooked and editors like Esemgee choose to ignore in favour of calling me a very nasty editor but don't have the facts to back them up other then their own vendetta. I always welcomed editors like @PamD to help me improve on things and tagged them where relevant for their opinions. But lately, this WP:Stalking and their recent comments which I see above, she has accepted her second paragraph was a bit unprofessional but not the first. I welcome I made an error, which I have to keep saying ain't intentional and if I don't know how to fix it. I happen to leave it to fix later but then she or another editor even a bot fixes it so there is no point in faults being picked over each edit. I don't see this with many new editors or experienced/inexperienced editors.I had a rocky start at the initial beginning blah blah blah. All editors make mistakes from time to time, plenty I know have made errors or anons and resulted in me or others fixing them. Why not tell those anons straight?

  They don't. I'm just sick of the stalking and having editors like Esemgee sticking their noses in business not related to them. I am sure PamD can handle herself like I can myself and I it was a case of asking other editors to step in and help alleviate this situation. Not to point the finger and play WP:Politics on this site. If one had autism like me and kept feeling watched and hounded. It be understandable but no one else is in my situation so I have every right to call it out and ask for it to stop. I am personally tired of it and want it to stop. I am not against PamD offering advice but not like her post on my talkpage of "I was wondering what you were up to these days for some reason" and such. I ain't a petulant child.

  I have over 1000s and 1000s of edits and articles created under my alias for the site. But some don't care to think that but get all in my face for standing up to it and for being a human being who has his limits. As Crouch has pointed out, PamD has made errors before and had to fix them. Same with the unconcerned editor above and myself among others. I have respect for PamD as an editor and advisor but I don't appreciate being like a chew toy for them from time to time with nitpicking minor edits when others go on to remove counties for past counties like Oldham for Lancs then Mancs and editors removing sourced content for non sourced content. Like youtubers instead of authors and vice versa. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Have you acknowledged making a mistake regarding the 25 km versus 25 miles link above? It's a very minor point, but the fact that you have posted a lot of text here with no clear acknowledgement that I can see is worrying. Those suggesting that PamD has done something wrong totally miss the point that contributors have to collaborate and work together to improve the encyclopedia. This is more than a hobby where people can pass their time as they want while not caring about mistakes. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Regarding the edit to Whitney-on-Wye, he said I welcome I made an error right above, so I don't think it's fair to say that it's still unacknowledged. DanCherek (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I’m editing from a phone and it’s problematic for adding diffs. I suggest looking at the 26 April 2023 talk page edits at User talk:DragonofBatley. PamD’s behaviour on that day is sort of, well, odd. Someone posts something to Dragon’s talk page and Dragon just deletes it. PamD then appears from out of nowhere and politely berates Dragon about how to better handle their talk page. Some of the comments are valid but I kept wondering as I read them, “why are you involved in this, now?”, “who asked you?”, “are you just watching this editor all the time?” and “are you the mother-in-law?”

  Check them for yourself and see what you think. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  @A. B. The talk page is on my watch list. A post was removed with edit summary "No idea what that's all about". I was curious, looked at it, and found a civil question from a sensible-seeming editor had been removed. I would have been interested to see DoB's reply to the post, as it raised the topic of removing untagged unsourced content, but despite having a talk page heading "Throw me your criticism in the section of the new tabs.", DoB had chosen to delete the post. This seemed discourteous to the user who had posted. I wasn't sure whether they genuinely couldn't work out that it related to this edit (the unlinked mention of Longridge was a good clue): I also pinged the poster to point out the importance of using diffs on talk pages. PamD 07:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  So this explains why you made the choices you did, but perhaps it would be good to indicate whether you will continue to make similar choices in the future. (Personally I think it would help resolve this discussion if you would commit to stopping the busybodyish talk-page comments on subjects like talk-page etiquette where your input is not necessary or desired, while reserving the right to revert substantively problematic edits to articles.) --JBL (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Dragon's talk page is on your watchlist, Pam? Uh huh. It might be better for everybody if that stopped being the case soon. Policing another editor's talk page is a often a good thing if they're a target of trolls or vandals or the like, but when it appears you're doing it in order to police the editor in question something has gone very wrong. — Trey Maturin™ 17:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  And while we're here, @PamD: in the middle of a discussion about how you appear to be reviewing every single edit that another editor makes, you make these two reverts [3] [4], the latter of which has an edit summary that could easily be read as outright obnoxious. Why are you doing this? — Trey Maturin™ 18:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, Trey, by the standards of incivility seen elsewhere on this noticeboard, those diffs are kind of a nothingburger. Not ANI-worthy. Admittedly that’s setting a very low behavioural bar.

  To me, the issue is instead PamD’s overall pattern of edits and their cumulative effect, not any particular edit viewed in isolation. It’s as if she’s playing especially intense man-to-man defensive basketball. I suggest she just lighten up and let others handle things.[5] —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Those diffs are a nothingburger by any standard. PamD was sourcing previously unsourced content instead of allowing it to be completely removed. And the edit summaries are completely inoffensive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agree, the stuff in article-space has been fine. --JBL (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't take a dive on this. But, noting in general, having somebody focus on somebody under an ostensible "just enforcing the rules" situation which is actually a "just doing an unusually thorough enforcement of an unusually strict interpretation of the rules and concentrating on a particular editor" can be very destructive. Whether or not this is such, perhaps it would be best for PamD agree to generally step back from this editor let other wiki editors and processes handle whatever is needed with this editor. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I concur. When you monitor a single editor's actions and constantly badger them for mistakes, more often than not valuable good-faith editors are driven away rather than improving. In some cases this can be warranted, but PamD is leaving talk page messages for minor mistakes that really could just be solved by a ping and explanation in the edit summary. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to defend PamD on this. This project is a collaborative effort. With exceptions including topic bans as well as rules violations, any edit any of us makes can be checked, reverted, folded, spindled, and mutilated by any other editor. Nobody's exempt, and we don't have designated moderators whose job it is. One reason nobody's exempt is that everybody sometimes makes mistakes, misunderstands, or writes something in a way that can be improved; the wiki way is that others fix and improve things. Another is that reasonable people can disagree, for example on whether (in a non-BLP) it's better to remove a slab of unsourced text or tag it as needing a citation. Most editors would agree that unless it's obvious trivia, best of all is to insert a source. If something is removed because it's unsourced, our advice on editing disputes is that an editor wishing to restore it needs to supply a source. That's exactly what PamD did in the second edit flagged above by Trey Maturin. How is this edit summary explaining the action "obnoxious": Undid revision 1157950240 by DragonofBatley (talk) - sources found, one describing objections, one confirming that it is being / has been built? That's the rollback edit summary plus a clear explanation. The only way I can imagine softening it up is by not naming the editor. Harassment consists of following an editor's contributions in a hostile manner, but many editors check the contributions of someone who often makes problematic edits; and leaving notes on that person's talk page to explain reverts and other changes is part of doing that constructively. That is what user talk pages are primarily for. Sadly, DragonofBatley's edits here suggest there is indeed a bit of a problem. Some very unclear prose; two denials of being a "petulant child" (I think they mean a "foolish child"); in response to Esemgee making the comparison PamD is one of the most polite and patient editors I have come across, DragonofBatley is not, an explosion of hyperbole and what looks to me like a personal attack: I'm not a nice editor? Only you think that ... So yeah 👍 nice try at trying to make me a vile editor by saying I'm not a nice editor. As far as I'm concerned your not a nice editor either.; and it took two of us asking whether they understood the problem with the change to the convert template to get from And I always change the km to mi because we use miles.in UK to a concession in passing that I'm grateful DanCherek pointed out, because it's not at all obvious: I welcome I made an error. I note that DragonofBatley has said here that they're on the spectrum. But both a certain level of competence and readiness to listen are required to work here (both have policy shortcuts that I won't impolitely link to). Someone's entitled to blank their talk page (although like PamD I was surprised this removal was on grounds of not knowing what the query was about; the article was specified, just not linked), but not to refuse all criticism, or to demand to work only with their friends, and based on this page, it seems DragonofBatley is edging too close to at least one of those. A. B. and others suggest PamD should leave checking DragonofBatley's work to someone else, but who gets to spend the necessary time and get called a bad guy (or a mother-in-law if they happen to have a female user name)? DragonofBatley needs to up their game. This is the big league, publication, and we all look at and work on each other's edits. They do it themself: others go on to remove counties for past counties like Oldham for Lancs then Mancs and editors removing sourced content for non sourced content. Like youtubers instead of authors and vice versa. They see PamD as "nitpicking minor edits", but some of their errors aren't minor. (Some of mine aren't either, of course.) Be more careful—Pam's right, that's the fix—and realise that reasonable people can differ on what's a "nitpick". Otherwise, I'm afraid we will indeed have a problem editor here. (PamD has never dragged DragonofBatley to a noticeboard or templated them for unconstructive editing, am I right? Really, they do appear to me to have been making great efforts to be civil and constructive.) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wholeheartedly agree! DragonofBatley seems (here and user page) positively proud of rebuffing and ignoring comments on their work, but given some of the example edits this seems misplaced. There may be a problem here & I don't think it's PamD causing it. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm less concerned that Dragon's editing isn't perfect (or even necessarily very good) than I am with what seems to be prima facie harassment: Pam is giving the appearance of watching every edit Dragon makes, policing Dragon's talk page, taking pleasure in reverting reasonable edits with what can be read as obnoxious edit summaries, dogging Dragon's every step... and whilst this is being discussed here, continuing to do so unabashed.

  If this was happening to me, regardless of the quality of my edits, I would get sick of it rapidly – as would most reasonable people.

  PamD has never dragged DragonofBatley to a noticeboard or templated them for unconstructive editing, am I right? is a horrible metric, by the way. We don't measure harassment by the number of templates issued or how often someone is taken to a dramaboard. We measure it by how someone is editing and interacting. By that metric, Pam is on Dragon's case all of the time. That would drive me nuts and isn't fair.

  It's not asking too much for Pam to disengage for a week or so – if Dragon's edits are as bad as are being suggested here, someone else (lots of someones else) will intervene. — Trey Maturin™ 12:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Pam is on Dragon's case all of the time.": Just a little analysis here of all of my 2023 comments on DoB's talk page (any omissions are accidental, one bullet may include more than one comment in a thread):

  1. 5 Jan: I can't remember what led me to User_talk:DragonofBatley#Vigo railway station (England), but the text I posted there is some standard boiler-plate advice I offer when I notice that an article has been created at a disambiguated title with no access provided from the base title(Vigo railway station). I also talked about church-name dab pages, having made links to some of DoB's articles. I thought we had a civilised exchange.
  2. 17 Jan: Can't remember what led to User_talk:DragonofBatley#Larry_Steinbachek but I'd been editing a related article and made what I thought were a couple of helpful suggestions about this one, and how to increase its readership.
  3. 6 April: Milnthorpe is on my watchlist: I live about 5 miles away. I noticed another removal of untagged unsourced content, including removing the mention of the local Dallam School which has an article, and commented. (I later found sources for much of the removed content).
  4. 6 April: I had created the redirect from St Chad's Church, Rochdale to the information on the church at Rochdale#Religion, (as it then was) so noticed, and commented, when that redirect was overwritten by an article on the church here which was mostly infobox and omitted all the historically interesting content, as well as having a few other problems. I then went on to copy that content, with attribution, into the new article to improve it, and found a couple more sources etc.
  5. 15 April: After seeing User_talk:DragonofBatley#St_Chad's_Church,_Chadsmoor_moved_to_draftspace I thought I offered constructive comments.
  6. 26 April: See above Longridge discussion. DoB deleted another editor's talk page post saying "No idea what that's all about": I clarified and commented.
  7. 29 May: User_talk:DragonofBatley#Whitney-on-Wye: I saw an edit which moved a town by 9 miles, corrected it, and explained how to avoid the problem (the useful parameter "|order=flip" in the {{convert}}, a template with more bells and whistles than most of us have learned to use) and, not having been scrutinising their talk page particularly carefully, I noticed User_talk:DragonofBatley#Disambiguation_link_notification_for_April_30 for the first time and offered my standard boiler-plate advice about the brilliant gadget which helps one to avoid linking to dab pages, as useful information.
     Genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia by helping DoB edit better, offering constructive suggestions, and occasionally fixing errors they had left. It seems we will never agree on whether or not it is good practice to removed long-standing, uncontentious, unsourced content rather than tagging it with {{cn}}. I think it damages the encyclopedia, DoB presumably sees it as helpful cleanup. PamD 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia by helping DoB edit better, offering constructive suggestions, and occasionally fixing errors they had left. And they asked you to stop in this thread. Your response was to continue to go through their edits looking for 'mistakes' and reverting things they did that you didn't like whilst they were here asking for help to try to get you to stop. Please stop. Stop. Stop doing this. Please. Stop. — Trey Maturin™ 16:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Repeating 'stop' over and over accomplishes nothing except to raise the temperature of the conversation. It is clear that the OP wishes to be left alone. What is much less clear is whether the OP understands the problems with their edits. Continuing to point the accusing finger solely at PamD, which you have done in each of your comments in this thread, is not helpful. Please stop berating PamD so that the discussion may proceed in a civil, reasonable manner. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Trey Maturin: I don't think your reading or characterization of the situation is accurate (eg, labeling this edit-summary as outright obnoxious (!)) or helpful. May I request that you step back from this thread? Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hi PamD, apologies for repeating my point from above, but it seems to have been swamped and I think it's worth making again: Could you please agree to stop giving unsolicited and unnecessary advice to DoB, as in edits 5 and 6 on your list? Or, indeed, simply agree to leave their talk-page alone in the absence of an unusually strong reason to post there? (You should, of course, continue to make edits in article-space that improve or protect the encyclopedia.) If you would agree to that, I think it would do a lot to defuse this situation. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  @PamD: I second what JBL said above. Usually it is a good practice to guide users who make good-faith errors by posting on their talkpage but in this case, since the feedback is not being appreciated, it would be advisable to keep off DragonofBatley's talkpage unless necessary.

  @DragonofBatley: Your conduct here has been really subpar, eg in comments like this one. Keep in mind that we are here solely to help build an encyclopedia and user talkpages is a resource that is provided to aid that effort, in part, as a venue for other editors to provide feedback. You cannot simply label editors providing that feedback (in polite, relevant and non-templated messages) "stalkers" and "harassers", as you have done repeatedly, and hope for your edit/conduct to escape scrutiny. While I have advised PamD to stay off your talkpage, they and others are still welcome to review your edits and report any grievous issues to ANI or other relevant boards. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  You probably should look at how that editor responded to me before and if you think being called not a nice editor is okay not to challenge. then your not offering a fair platform to challenge that opinion. Esemgee is a horrible editor towards me and I won't change my feelings about that. If they can say one thing, I can say another. He began it and I responded to it. "Your conduct here has been really subpar, eg in comments like this one". I thinks the other editors was subpar too. I'm allowed to defend myself aren't I? DragonofBatley (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  It looks very much like not a niceness issue, but a competence issue on your part. I can appreciate that you don't like having your repeated and persistent insertion of errors being called out, but the root cause is your repeated and persistent insertion of errors - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've run into PamD several times on England-related articles and get the feeling that she is good about watching over them. She is quite assertive but I've never seen her as abusive or unreasonable, or even more than slightly abrupt. I don't presume that she is watching me when I encounter her on another article related to England, I just assume she is watching that article. Looking into someone's edit history when you notice them making a mistake is also not harassing them to my mind. Often times I will notice vandals and severe problem editors in precisely that manner and have to go through their edits and correct them. PamD is a prolific editor and one should expect to encounter her in her topic areas and probably elsewhere. I think most people who deal with high numbers of problem edits and editors will tend to get a hair trigger and become impatient. Sometimes they will make a mistake. A simple apology should be adequate for those cases. I struggle with this myself.

  Of course, once told by an editor not to ping them or not to post comments to their user talk page, it's time to stop, except for mandatory notices, so going forward that should be easy to avoid. I don't think that means one would have to stop watching their edits for problems though.

  Perhaps PamD would agree to be careful about berating editors for mistakes and keep the tone neutral? "Careless" is a term I use at times in these situations but probably not the best choice. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• This discussion, to me, feels quite easy to solve.
  PamD should stop leaving comments on DragonofBatley's talk page that relate to general improvement of the encyclopedia, unless there is a significant reason that a talk page message has to be left. Any short comments can go in edit summaries, and clearly the longer comments are not appreciated.
  Meanwhile, more people are now aware of DragonofBatley's errors, and if they are a problem and PamD takes a step back from reverting them as well, other editors will notice, and then that can be dealt with from there.
  I don't really see what's left to discuss here, if everyone's okay with this (I don't think anyone involved isn't accepting of these terms, and these seem to me like the minimal acceptable terms). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  The discussion is quite simple. I've accepted my errors and I'm trying to improve. I want to improve without being dogged or harassed. That's it end of. If others feel what I've added or removed is controversial. Discuss it with me on either the article talkpage or on my wall. But not every little error or odd removal or addition I make. I've been on this site for over a few years and know what I am doing. Might make a slight error every so often and to those who claim I am. "Defensive" about my edits being called out, I am actually not offended but if I am called words like "careless", "not nice" or "a problem". Expect me to defend myself as I won't be hounded or made to look like a fool for defending my actions where necessary. If I've put something so offensive or broken a link to a table. I try to fix it like I did with my new Skellingthorpe (Great Northern Railway) railway station page that I created. I spend a few edits on other articles trying to link the page and after a few mistakes. It managed to get fixed. So it shows I can do it.

  But I like to work at my pace fixing edits and if I can't fix it. I'll normally say in an edit summary I can't fix it. could some else please look at this. If it can't be fixed I'll revert my edits and try again through my sandbox like I've done for my UA articles on many counties. Nitpicking edits does sometimes help but not on a constant barrage of notifications. So yeah I think so far the way PamD has adhered to edit summaries is great but I wasn't happy to see she tried to speak to Esemgee on their talk page about "controlling my edits" and "whether I should be banned". @A. B. And @Crouch, Swale:. That felt a bit like WP: Canvasing. DragonofBatley (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, here is my recent conversation with Esemgee. I specifically said "I don't (I think) want to see him blocked". Having been brought to ANI I felt it reasonable to have a quiet conversation with another editor who had interacted with DoB. The reference there to "editing-while-under-the-influence" refers to this reply to Esemgee, a response to this group of early-morning edits. PamD 10:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  @PamD:, hi. Of your own volition and consent, are you okay leaving DoB alone for the next six months, till say the end of the year? Wikipedia is a big place and DoB can be monitored by other editors. A person who has contributed to multiple GAs will learn on the way. We can come back in January (or earlier) in case DoB's talk page gets filled with multiple warnings. But for now, for your peace of mind perhaps and so for his, how does this sound? Lourdes 10:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  @PamD and DragonofBatley: I have 3 proposed editing restrictions either for say 6 months or indefinite:

  A topic ban for PamD for User talk:DragonofBatley only

  A 1 way interaction for PamD with DOB encouraged also to avoid interaction

  A mutural interaction ban.

  Yes PamD does lave legitimate concerns about DOB's editing and she has helped fix problems with formatting etc but with this interaction problem going on along time it might just be better for both and the whole project if we just have an interaction ban. The interaction ban wouldn't prevent Pam from fixing obvious errors unless of course there were complete reverts. As said above if there are significant problem's with DOB's editing others can deal with it. I'd also be fine if both users can contact me if they really do need to say something about/to the other. I have worked with both editors for years and all 3 of us work in the same areas. If you're both happy with one of these then I don't see why it can't be enacted soon. Thoughts from either of you or anyone else? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I would personally prefer the first one. I am okay with PamD discussing with me on talk pages relating to articles like on Rotherham and Skellingthorpe etc...But not always if at all on my wall. Which I would rather be used for either editors asking for my help or pointing out the odd error. Not a constant barrage of talk page messages. I think 1st one would suit me great. Only under exceptional circumstances should PamD post to my talkpage say in certain discussions but not every edit or removing I make. DragonofBatley (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I could only support the first and I think it goes without saying that if someone asks one to stop posting to their talk page (or pinging them) that one must stop doing so, other than notices required by Wikipedia (for ANI or 3RR reports or such). —DIYeditor (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think any sort of formal sanction is necessary or advisable. Nor do I agree with the assertion stated a bit above that PamD should step back and assume that someone else will notice DOB's errors. That's a great recipe for letting errors get through. While I appreciate that DOB doesn't like having their errors pointed out repeatedly by the same person, this is an encyclopedia and therefore such errors are a bigger deal than some in this thread seem to realize. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree with this. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not ignoring this but am working on a reply. PamD 21:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• I looked to check in with PamD today but wrote nothing and then did a bit of digging. Before deciding what you'd inflict on PamD, read this article. There is a glaring error on the first line. It veers off-topic with a mention of a railway station, first error repeated line 3, then a confusing sentence with four churches. repetition of Grade II. Next para, was the new church really opened "by the Bishop of Chester using the materials of the old church opposite?" Then "the newer church was built on the opposite and enlarged". The last sentence is incorrect according to the ref, the land was donated, not part of the cost. Last para, well you should have the idea by now. Various editors pootled with tags etc. but nobody appears to have actually read it. If this is acceptable as it appears to be to several editors, then I fear for the encyclopedia and conclude it will continue. I could quite easily fix it but why should I? Someone above said it was a competence issue, you judge. Esemgee (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Esemgee Interesting. There's a closely related article St Augustine's Church, Rugeley; both were created by DoB in April this year. They share a lot of content including oddness like "is used for both tourists and burials at the nearby cemeteries.". I clearly wasn't hounding their every move as I didn't notice either at the time, though I see that after being dragged here I quietly added the old church to the dab page at St. Augustine's Church, as DoB had ignored my helpful suggestion about the usefulness of making navigational links to help readers find your articles. If I'd seen the articles at the time I might have tried to improve them: I can't find the energy to do so in the current situation, but anyone wanting to fix them up might like to add the NHLE listing and official website for the 1823 church. PamD 07:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply by PamD

I drafted several paragraphs of lengthy final comments, but decided to leave them out.

I have taken DoB's talk page off my watch list. I note that they say Only under exceptional circumstances should PamD post to my talkpage say in certain discussions but not every edit or removing I make.. I have commented on their talk page 8 times this year, while they have made over 2,000 edits, but I will henceforward comment there even less, trying to recognise what DoB might call "exceptional circumstances". DoB edits mainly on UK places and buildings, an area of interest to me, so our paths will inevitably cross occasionally: if they were editing on, say, American baseball players, Hindi films, places in New Zealand or geology I would take very little interest in their work.

I urge DoB to check their edits: a recent example was this: yes, excellent contribution to add the missing "England" to the lead as geog context; removing "affluent" is fair enough; but did they read the article as they left it, with "an residential"? (I quietly fixed it: was I damaging, or improving, our precious, amazing, encyclopedia?)

I apologise for upsetting them in the past by repeated use of the term "careless" (though I think I always used it to refer to edits, rather than the editor), but I don't think I have used it recently. The second paragraph of my User_talk:DragonofBatley#Whitney-on-Wye was ill-judged, but was intended as a chatty explanation of how I came to find that article. I remember at the time thinking of signing off with "Take care", as one might to a friend, but realising it was inappropriately ambiguous in this context.

I hope we can all now get on with editing the encyclopedia. This reply is later than it might be because yesterday I got distracted into reverting, amending, or rolling back most of the edits of a new editor with apparently very poor grasp of English (they had happened to edit, badly, an obscure article which was still on my watchlist after I had stub-sorted it 8 years ago and added a talk page, without unticking "add to watchlist"). I worry about how many really poor edits go un-noticed: I would expect a major English novelist to be on someone's watchlist, but some of the mistakes in this horrible edit weren't corrected for a couple of years until I came across a mystifying wrong word inserted by a non-English speaker over-trusting a spellchecker. PamD 07:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply from DragonofBatley (not DoB)

So while I have seen the reply of PamD to the above comments I just want to clear a few things up.

Moving forward I will (and I mean will) check and double check and quadruple check my edits.

I also want editors to please stop using the DoB initials to address me because that's not my name on here. I refer to others by their names so please be kind and courteous to do so for me. DoB means Date of Birth. And I take huge offence to that initial as mine so please use my full name or don't mention it at all.

Additionally, I am topic banning myself for a while on miles/km conversions but only if need be. If I feel it's easier to just add miles and bracket the km I will do so.

Furthermore I will begin adding areas to towns and cities where appropriate as I did so with West Bromwich, Smethwick and Oldbury. And still maintain editing articles of interest to me.

In response to PamD and her above reply and to another editor who claimed that a request to have her limit posting on my wall was not right. I have been working on a solution over the past two days and that is what Crouch, Swale said was a fair point. I must say she had made some comments since on his talkpage which is entirely fine but I don't blame Crouch, Swale for choosing to mediate the concerns of PamD.

So therefore, I leave the ani site with two new outlooks. One is I'm far from trustworthy to most editors above and Two is I don't think any editor will ever trust me enough to warrant edits so if the encyclopedia wants me to quit and go away. Then do say so because it's clear I'm not welcome here as an editor from some of the comments above. DragonofBatley (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, if you take huge offence to editors abbreviating your lengthy username instead of typing it out in full every time they refer to you, then maybe you should find another hobby. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you concur? [6] EEng 08:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Erm no. And I'm on the spectrum so please don't WP: Discriminate against me for wishing to be addressed by my full name. Plus my name is not that lengthy it's like DragonofBatley - 14 characters. Not 50 . It's not hard to type it out DragonofBatley (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Being on the sprectrum doesn't give you a special right to demand that editors waste their brainpower remembering that you demand that they not do something that's perfectly natural and done all the time on talk pages throughout the project. No one's discriminating against you. Do not trying playing that card again. EEng 10:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism & edit warring by M.Bitton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Within a span of only two hours, User:M.Bitton conducted three reverts on French conquest of Algeria. They have repeatedly removed properly sourced casualty figures without explanation and falsely attributed a misleading casualty figure. Additionally, they vandalized the "casualties" section I added, removing the source, casualty figures, and the table. I also asked M.Bitton on the talk page why they keep removing the casualty figure I added, but they refused to provide any response or explanation. They're also behaving passive aggressively, calling my edits "garbage" and threatening to report me to the admins because I'm adding sourced content that they dislike. Gutsyncti (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Another SPA who obviously is not new (new editors don't create elaborate tables) making things up as they go along. Here's the link to the discussion if anyone is interested. The question that I have to ask myself now that we are speaking with open hearts is: whose sock are they? M.Bitton (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I wasn't notified of this, I cam here after receiving a ping notification. It's strange how they can find their way, yet struggle to comply with simple concepts. M.Bitton (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, they reverted once more after filing this report, making this their fourth revert. M.Bitton (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The edits at 05:47 and 05:51 (UTC) were consecutive, so they only count as one revert for 3RR purposes. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: the consecutive edits have been listed as one in my 3AN report (which was generated using Twinkle). M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Another lie from M.Bitton. That's my third edit on that article today, so how is that a fourth revert? Gutsyncti (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Your first edit is a revert (as explained to you on the talk page); you therefore have no excuses for deliberately breaking the 3R rule, especially filing a report about "edit warring". M.Bitton (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Related report. At 12:40 UTC, M.Bitton filed a WP:ANEW report against Gutsyncti, so there are effectively two threads open on the same situation. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Gutsyncti is a sockpuppet and has been blocked as such. Courcelles (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TP and RefDesk bludgeoning by Hosh1313 in relativity etc. topics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hosh1313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Byron Forbes, has some views about modern physics. I think they will agree that those views are not compatible with the mainstream understanding held by the vast majority of professional scientists. (Less charitably, they are not even wrong.) In itself, that is not a problem; the problem comes from the way they try to argue those views.

They first started doing that on the talk page of relevant articles, oftentimes bringing their own original research free of sources in a fashion that violates WP:NOTFORUM. Take a look at any of their contributions to the talk namespace, for instance this is their first edit since their twelve-year hiatus in editing (the 2011 stuff is similar, but so far in the past it is not very relevant).

They apparently realized they should not do that, which is progress, but have since moved on to WP:RD/S to do exactly the same thing. Now, I don’t want to open the can of worms of the RefDesk rules/guidelines (whether WP:NOTFORUM applies in full force or not etc.). However, even under the extreme position that the RefDesk is a self-governing project unmoored from the necessity of being useful to the rest of Wikipedia, Byron Forbes is not asking good-faith questions. That goes against both the spirit of the RefDesk and the letter of its guidelines (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#What_the_reference_desk_is_not #2 / #5).

I (and others) told them to cut it out. Since then, they opened a new thread (and posted comments etc.) with the exact same problems as before.

Also, they take a generally-belligerent tone (examples: [7], [8]). As far as I can tell, there is no single instance that crosses the line of WP:PA but it compounds the problem.

100% of their contributions so far is the behavior described above. If they had at least a couple of good edits to articles, I would be hesitant to drag them here, but currently every edit of theirs is a negative for Wikipedia and/or the RefDesk. I do not know if we are at the point of sanctions yet; if not, they should be told in no uncertain terms that a change of tack is needed. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Textbook NOTHERE. Just here to POV push fringe nonsense and entirely uninterested in the encyclopedic point of the project. We need waste no more time. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for Resolution of Undisclosed Paid Tag on Article "The Chenab Times"

Dear Admins,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to address a matter of great importance to me and my contributions on Wikipedia. Recently, an "undisclosed paid" tag was added to an article I created, "The Chenab Times," within the framework of the micro niche-based Wikiproject Chenab Valley. This tag has caused me considerable distress as it implies that I have received compensation for my work, which is entirely untrue.

I want to emphasize that I have never had any connections to The Chenab Times nor have I received any form of payment for any of my contributions on Wikipedia. As an avid Wikipedia editor, this platform has become my addiction, and I take great pride in my commitment to ensuring accuracy, neutrality, and adherence to the principles of the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy.

In July 2022, an individual lodged a complaint with the DragonflySixtyseven, asserting that I had been paid for creating the article in question. However, this claim was thoroughly discussed and clarified on my talk page, leaving no doubt about the falsity of the accusation. Despite these efforts, an "undisclosed paid" tag was added to the article in August 2022 by Praxidicae, and today, in June 2023, it still remains unresolved.

In an attempt to address the issue, I initiated two discussions, the first on August 10, 2023, and the second five months ago on January 7, 2023, on Praxidicae's talk page. Unfortunately, I have not received any response or clarification from Praxidicae regarding the reasons behind the tag placement. To my surprise, I recently discovered that Praxidicae claimed to have submitted evidence to Arbcom (Arbitration Committee), further complicating the matter. Regrettably, I am still awaiting any indication of these alleged evidences, which falsely claim that I have been paid for my contributions.

I strongly believe that someone with a personal agenda, likely displeased with my efforts to maintain neutrality and adhere to the NPOV policy, has orchestrated this situation to tarnish my reputation and potentially lead to my banning from Wikipedia. It is possible that an individual from the aforementioned group lied and convinced Praxidicae, who subsequently placed the "undisclosed paid" tag on my article.

I want to reiterate that I maintain a separate page where I declare any conflicts of interest (COIs). However, it is essential to note that I have no COIs with any subject matter on Wikipedia. I refrain from editing anything or anyone with whom I have a personal connection or affiliation. I am dedicated to upholding the integrity of this platform and ensuring the accuracy and neutrality of the information presented.

Given the circumstances and the substantial amount of time that has passed since I first addressed this issue, I kindly request the attention and assistance of the Wikipedia admins in resolving this matter. I firmly believe that my contributions should not be tarnished by false accusations, and I am confident that the evidence will support my position.

I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this case. Wikipedia has always been a place of collaboration and knowledge-sharing, and I sincerely hope that we can work together to rectify this situation and maintain the integrity of our shared platform.

Thanks and Regards. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 08:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the tag for now, just as I would remove a birth date citation with a reference pointing to a VRT/OTRS ticket. If there are conduct issues, they can be addressed using blocks, bans or page protection. If there are content issues, they can be pointed out specifically. Adding a content tag based on alleged non-public (and thus unverifiable) issues with the article's creator is something I'm not sure we should necessarily have an article template for, but at least something that shouldn't be done if there's doubt about it. If ArbCom thinks the tag is helpful, they can add it back, I guess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting is that Praxidicae has only edited sporadically in the last nine months, after being vastly more active previously. Cullen328 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Praxidicae is something of an expert on UPE, but alas, her personal life has taken her away from us. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism to James Craig (barque)

An IP hoping vandal has been very active on the James Craig (barque) page. The edits range from the silly [9] to the nonsensical[10] Nickm57 (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I've semiprotected James Craig (barque) for 3 months. Deor (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nickm57 and Deor: The IP hopping vandal has been active at Kanangra (ferry), ‎HMAS Bass and Baragoola as well. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lavalizard101: I don't think there has been quite enough disruption on those to merit protection (though the first one is close). If the disruption continues, please request semiprotection at WP:RFPP. Deor (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The IP repeated their edit and left a very determined comment at the talk of Kanangra (ferry) so I semi-protected it for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:HiddenFace101

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

HiddenFace101 (talk · contribs) called me "a delusional" due to a disagreement now hopefully solved. It seems he/she thinks Wikipedia is the truth or something – "Wikipedia is not for research, it is fact" – but he/she had not added sources to the article and kept reverting edits. I will not warn him/her about the personal attack, as it will likely be ignored, therefore, I here request an admin to warn him/her. SLBedit (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As noted on their talkpage, I believe they are editing in good faith and some of their edits are useful contributions. However there is a lengthy history of unsourced additions, non-neutral additions and now a personal attack. All this is fresh off a week's block, which I've now extended to a month to prevent the disruption continuing. Again as noted on their talkpage, hopefully this will assist in giving time to read up on verifiability, a neutral point of view and making sure they comment on content not contributors. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruption-only account?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Suggesting a museum of vandalism and asking how to use ChatGPT to create content seem almost innocuous, but 3 if 1st sentences were defining no one would read to the end and 4 who invented science? fall somewhere on the silly–trolling axis, and creating Wikipedia talk:How to get away with UPE is exceptionally difficult to read in good faith. Their contributions to mainspace have all been reverted. I was tempted to point them at WP:YOUNG, but the "How to get away with UPE" pushed me here instead. diff of notification. Folly Mox (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23 has Indeffed them per NOTHERE. Courcelles (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

A museum of vandalism? Isn't that what WP:BJAODN is? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AnonymouslyB making unexplained edits

AnonymouslyB (talk · contribs) has been making unexplained edits and moves to the Days (manga) article. I don't oppose the idea of making another article for the episode list, but the content is clearly not enough to warrant a split yet, and the user didn't even provide sources for the new article. I also warned them on their talk page, but they continued making the same edits anyway. Xexerss (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The user in question has declared a conflict of interests to List of Days episodes, which means they should not make any edits directly and instead use edit requests for any article with any relation to Days (manga). Link20XX (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering why the page cannot be named Days (Anime) and stays Days (Manga)? Just so I know for future references AnonymouslyB (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The original work is a manga series and the anime is an adaptation. Anyway, you moved the page again instead of waiting for an answer, don't do that again. Xexerss (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add as well that AnonymouslyB began a disruptive editing on the article Tsurune such as adding [[List of Episodes]] on the "Anime" section (see here), and copy-and-pasting the existing Season 1 table, labeling it as Season 2, and adding it under "External links" section (see here). Centcom08 (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I am sorry for the edit. I just wanted to put a season 2 in and then I was going to finish editing once I got the proper information. I was not trying to disrupt anything at all! :) AnonymouslyB (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching us. I suggest to do that on your sandbox so that once proper information is available then you can make changes without confusing the readers of the article as to why there are duplicate tables. Centcom08 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I am still new to wiki and I wanted to make an edit to adding a separate page for list of episodes since I know other anime’s did that. Maybe I didn’t go about it in the right way. I apologize for causing any trouble! :) AnonymouslyB (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Based on their recent edits in the article, and assuming that they don't want to be disruptive, it seems that what we have here is a WP:CIR case. I would revert the edits myself, but I don't want to be engaged in an edit warring. Xexerss (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Did I mess something up again? I’m sorry, I thought I referenced where I got my information like I’m supposed to :( AnonymouslyB (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Just take a look at the table for the OVA episodes placed at the bottom of the article, where it should not be, and per WP:A&M/ORS, MyAnimeList is not a reliable source. Xexerss (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you, I deleted the edits so it returned back to how it was AnonymouslyB (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Twinkle1990

Twinkle1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who has a limited understanding of WP:GNG, is aiming to become a new page patroller. First, they nominated a notable topic for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilqees Khanum), then dismissed all coverage in Pakistani media as being just a memorial only, and then scrutinized Insight3's article creations/edit, made another provocative nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargent (film) and tagged Charlie Ottley ([11]). This user has a history of involvement with UPE, as evidenced by their vote of "Speedy Keep" on spam page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotique and some other issues identified by @MrsSnoozyTurtle: on their talkpage. We should thoroughly examine this user's history and stop the disruption (and hounding) they are causing. It is unacceptable to treat a regular contributor, like @Insight 3:, in this manner. 180.200.221.5 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this and other issues, I'd suggest to remove their AfC reviewing right. 180.200.221.5 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

But why this? Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec)I hadn't noticed their retaliation against Insight_3, but am worried about both their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilqees Khanum (showing a significant lack of knowledge of a number of basic policies one should know if one wants to be a NPP and AfD regular), and some of their recent AfC rejections like Draft:Gharib (film), one of the big winners of this year's Fajr International Film Festival awards. The article had sources like this. Fram (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Fram you first commented for speedy delete and then you triggered CSD. And now you are blaming me under cover of an IP user? Sigh. I am just feeling annoyed. Please be civil. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• I am not that IP, that's a different editor. Fram (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've spot-checked Twinkle1990's AfC log (which in itself shows an astonishingly high decline rate) and found almost every single entry to be questionable, to put it mildly:

  Draft:Giovanni and the Hired Guns – declined as not notable despite a reference to full-length feature in Rolling Stone

  Draft:Wojciech Sumliński – declined as per WP:COIEDIT, nonsensical given that COIEDIT tells COI editors to use AfC (since accepted by Fram)

  Draft:Sheila Hill (writer) – declined as not notable despite several references to reviewers of her work (WP:NARTIST)

  Draft:Battle of Malandari Pass (1586) – perfectly valid stub declined for providing insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter

  Draft:The Archies (film), Draft:The Great Indian Rescue, and Draft:Shadow Force (upcoming film) – all declined with the comment please do not re-submit until the movie released, inventing policy on the fly.

  Draft:Ayodhya (2005 Telugu film) – declined with the comment please bring more sourcing than single source [...] try to pull minimum 3 reliable sourcing, but the draft already cited precisely three reviews in reliable sources

  Draft:Vera (novel) – declined as not notable, cites ~6 reviews in reliable sources

I stopped there. Taken together with the bizarre argument at the above AfD (WP:NOTMEMORIAL means that we should ignore obituaries as sources), I get the distinct impression that they're looking for reasons to get rid of articles rather than actually reviewing them. I'd support pulling their AfC pseudoright, and honestly wouldn't be opposed to a WP:CIR block given the damage they've already done to new editor retention with ~250 declined AfCs. – Joe (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

And now I see they're move warring with Fram over Gharib (film)... – Joe (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Does Gharib (film) pass WP:NFILM? If so, then I was bad in reviewing. Not bad, but worst. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Twinkle1990 Yes, it is obviously notable. WP:NFO point 3 states that The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking is an indication of notability, this film won multiple awards from a major Iranian film festival. The article also has full length pieces of coverage of this film as sources, so it obviously passed WP:GNG. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@163.1.15.238 the Synopsis section is empty, awards section has no reference. And you all are arguing that it's valid for inclusion? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The page needs cleanup/improvement, not deletion IMO. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Twinkle1990 When you are reviewing drafts you should be accepting anything that has a reasonable chance of being kept at AFD (WP:AFCPURPOSE). Drafts are not expected to be perfect in order to be accepted, Perfection is not required is a part of core editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT).

The synopsis section does not contribute to notability and can be added at a later date. The awards are referenced in the text of the article. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Just on this comment alone I'd support revocation of your AfC reviewer right. Would you care to point out to us what part of relevant notability criteria requires a film article to possess a synopsis section, or that there must be references linked to an awards section? (The references to the awards are plainly in the lead.) That kind of sloppy nonsense is a disqualifier, sure ... but not of that draft. Ravenswing 16:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Any objections to me auto-resubmitting the drafts that @Joe Roe pointed out above as being problematic, that way they get a second review? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

none on my end @Novem Linguae

It appears in some cases Twinkle didn't even read them before actioning.

Given the Pakistan sourcing issues raised in the AfDs here, I wonder if there isn't a need for I/P sanctions. Can someone more familiar with CT weigh in on that please? Star Mississippi 21:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me @Novem Linguae. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Problematic drafts pointed out above are resubmitted. If anyone thinks we need to dig into this user's AFC log further, please post a section at WT:AFC and I'm sure some folks would be willing to take a look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Got a couple. There are a few I think can go either way, even if Twinkle's decline reasons were incorrect. Star Mississippi 23:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that this user has pending changes reviewer and autopatrolled rights. Should these be removed too? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

AFC reviewers with autopatrol have their AFC accepts bypass NPP. Not trying to pile on, but it may make sense to spot check some of this user's accepts. I think pending changes can be kept unless there is a diff of a problem there. Autopatrol is a more sensitive perm and that may be open to some discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Revoked it's clear this editor has issues precluding them from using advanced rights. While I agree with @Lepricavark that we're probably heading toward a CIR block vs. a patchwork, I think there's too much damage to be done with autopatrolled for it to remain.

@Novem Linguae is there an easy way to see their accepts? You know my facility with more complex stuff, so if you say the word query I'm running away. Happy to perform any cleanup needed. Star Mississippi 23:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You could check their AFC log, if they have one. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeap, good thinking. User:Twinkle1990/AfC log. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Novem Linguae @DanCherek I started a subsection below so it's cleaner. Houston, we have a problem. Star Mississippi 00:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Enterprisey's AfC Review History tool can be used. DanCherek (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Twinkle raised this on my Talk. I have had minimal interaction with them so don't have a broad familiarity of their editing. However I wanted to raise that in addition to the copyvio tagging @Primefac: raised on their Talk (processing, not writing), they have an incomplete understanding of how re--draftification can be handled (User_talk:Twinkle1990#Draftifying_articles_that_are_at_AfD). If the article had been eligible, I'd have draftified it myself. Suggest the probationary right be removed until they have a firmer understanding of policy. This is a question in my mind of not being ready, not that they couldn't ever be one. Unfamiliar with NPP requirements, so no comment there. Star Mississippi 15:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why lying? I restored here. Not you. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say I restored it. I said you draftified it when it wasn't eligible.

  Please do not accuse me of lying when you misread what I said. Star Mississippi 15:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is really unfortunate that someone nominates my article for deletion just because I disagreed with their AfD rationale for Bilqees Khanum. I hope senior editors will take a good look at the matter. Insight 3 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• In my defence, I am asking only why this invitation was sent? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  What’s wrong with it? Just asking a user to comment on a ANI post is fine. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  No. You shouldn't advocate per WP:PODIUM and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Twinkle1990, the invitation is a courtesy notification because MrsSnoozyTurtle is mentioned in the opening. The WP pages you cited have no relevance to the situation. Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Twinkle1990 How are either of those policies relevant to that talk page message? it is completely appropriate to leave a neutrally worded notice on the talk page editors involved in a situation. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Neither of those have any bearing on asking someone to comment at ANI. The issue would potentially be WP:CANVASS, which neither you nor the IP violated. Between this and the replies above re: Gharib (film), you're making it clear you're not familiar enough to be reviewing articles at AfC or NPP. I'm honestly beginning to wonder whether additional action is needed. Star Mississippi 16:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  seconding @Illusion Flame. @Twinkle1990 you also pinged me and at least one other editor. You and the IP were both neutral so there's no canvassing issue. The IP should log in, but that's neither here nor there. Star Mississippi 15:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi I am logged in with my username and password. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  I believe @Star Mississippi was referring to the IP that started the ANI report. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I speedily closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargent (film). We're having enough issues getting input at AfD anyway this time of year, we don't need to spend time and eyeballs on one that is clearly going to be kept. Star Mississippi 15:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• It's 2 am here on my end and a very late night. I should go to bed. I request for no action in my inactivity where I can't defend myself, which is similar to prosecuting a death man who can't defend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinkle1990 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Only for those given to outrageous hyperbole. Your possession of a modest right, which you've demonstrated yourself not competent to correctly exercise, is scarcely comparable to a person's life. Ravenswing 16:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed Twinkle1990's probationary AfC rights as there is ample evidence in this thread and elsewhere that they are not able to use them competently. Their battleground conduct here isn't helping either. They've actually had the right revoked once before, following this discussion. I don't really understand why it was granted again, but it appears that nothing has changed since the first revocation. I'm not going to honor the request for no action in my inactivity where I can't defend myself as the AfC page is clear that probationary members can be removed from the list at any time and frankly, I don't think further "defence" from the user is likely to help their case. Spicy (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith that they had actually improved. I was going to require that they post their first ten reviews at WT:AFC for review before continuing, but I was mildly concerned they would pick the easiest and most obvious of the litter (intentionally or not) and it wouldn't actually tell us anything. I have no issue with revoking again given the above discussions, with apologies to the community for enabling them. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

See also:User talk:Twinkle1990#Brian Slocum Article. Twinkle1990 tagged a prolific, well-established editor's draft as created by an undisclosed paid editor. If Twinkle1990 had taken more time -- checked out the author's other edits and checked out the article refs, this wouldn't have happened. I don't think Twinkle1990's intent was mean-spirited but this sort of thing is demoralizing for other editors.

@Jack4576.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I also experienced retaliation by Twinkle1990 after they were removed from AfC the first time, a discussion in which I participated (linked above by Spicy). Immediately after they chose my most recent AfC accepts (end of February/beginning of March), nominating Clement Richardson for deletion, tagging Roger Ressmeyer with notability, and prodding Demian Saffer. Why they went after me I don't know but this is clearly a pattern of unacceptable behaviour. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s definitely not a coincidence. There may be some WP:CIR issues here to, given some of their responses here and actions elsewhere. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 18:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The revocation of AfC rights is a good start, but I think at minimum a tban from deletion is also warranted because of this user's incredibly poor grasp of deletion-related policy. Then again, a full-on CIR indef is probably the simplest and best route to take. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that they should just be indefed per WP:CIR. They've continually engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BF editing and a complete lack of understanding of deletion processes. Especially considering this is not a new editor, they should know better. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

AFC Checks

Moved to WT:AFC § AFC Checks

MCC214

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MCC214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) LTa AXXXXK, cross wiki abuse, reported in vandalism page 124.217.189.108 (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

58.178.203.55 spamming an obvious scam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

58.178.203.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is spamming an out and out scam. I am also requesting revdel of their edits under WP:CRD criteria RD3.

• 4-im warning: [12]
• ANI notice:[13]

Offending Edits:

• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]

— FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Done and done. We don't RD "mere" spam, but scammers have been known to link to old revisions in cases like this, so I agree RD3 applies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Why weren't they indef blocked? They're pushing a scam, why should we let them come back to do the same thing (which they probably will) and waste the community's time? I'm not usually one for indef blocks on first offense, but when we're dealing with a scam account, I see not point not for an indef block. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:IPBLENGTH, although that policy could do with examples of when to indef an IP, however unlikely and infrequent an IP Indeffing is. This also seems to be their first instance, which can’t be an IP Indef per the above. MM (Communicate?) ^(Operations) 08:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  @JML1148: What MM said. There's no way to know how long this person will be on this IP, so for now it only makes sense to block briefly. If disruption continues, escalating blocks can be employed, up to (in theory, eventually) our de facto upper limit of 10 years. Actual vald indef blocks of IPs happen on the order of a few per year. When they do happen, they're bascally an IAR thing for some sort of extreme edge case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sergio Gacha 1 and User:Sergio Almeida Oficial

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was looking at the editing history of Lucas Moura and notice similar usernames, then I looked at the contrib, which I thought was kind of similar editing, is this one person? Govvy (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe the latter is a WP:MISLEADNAME problem, possibly WP:ORGNAME with the ‘official’ in it.

I see crossover on the subject of footballers, alongside Govvy’s observation of Lucas Moura. One does edit summaries in English, the other in Spani- Oh wait.

Happy to sweep the contribs later, see if they meet the ‘disruptive editing’ criteria for an SPI, unless someone else wants to, first? MM (Communicate?) ^(Operations) 09:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, what’s with User:Sergio Gacha and User:Sergio Gacha 2? There’s footballer edits for these guys, too. [18], [19]. All four seem to edit similar areas, and the edits seem to be the same. I’d start an SPI, if I had a solid case for how the edits are disruptive. MM (Communicate?) ^(Operations) 11:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, there's no need for a sockpuppet investigation when the evidence is so blatant. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

If right that makes four accounts so far, I wonder how many more there might be. With three Sergio Gacha accounts that's enough to run an SPI. Govvy (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Looking through the Checkuser magic glasses says this all is evasion by User:Silver exe. Blocked and tagged. Courcelles (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page access for 134.122.35.105

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest you revoke the talk page access of 134.122.35.105, they don't seem too happy about their rangeblock. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it's just that one, or if the whole range needs to be revoked. I reported a page protection request. Tropicalkitty (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Taking a look at the contributions of the range, yeah, I think its all of them. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the existing block of the range to include the removal of TPA. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Randy Kryn - WP:IDHT on edit warring and fringe topics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Randy Kryn has been insisting at WP:FTN that a topic in parapsychology and chaos magic is not a fringe theory at WP:FTN even after being told so by multiple editors, apparently refusing to acknowledge the concept of fringe, accuses others of edit warring while continuing to revert after multiple editors have reverted their edits 1 2, (apparently they didn't notice I wasn't the only one who reverted their changes...)

I'm taking this to WP:ANI because quite frankly if one of the top 200 most prolific editors truly still hasn't figured out what WP:FRINGE is by now, this is far more serious issue of failure to get the point.

They've previously been at ANI, warned and blocked for edit warring before.

My previous interaction with this editor was them re-opening a closed merge proposal citing non-existent policy (or perhaps their own personal standards), then claiming they never read policies so this seems like a pattern of invention of non-existent rules or policies that fit their own personal standards while disregarding community concerns about their edits. - car chasm (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• I thought this might happen, because I had left a message at the fringe wikiproject notice board that I was signing off for the evening. So what occurs a few minutes later? This nonsense. The edit war being referred is entirely the editors, as I reverted and asked for a talk page discussion and then....whoo, right into an edit war. And the discussion being referred to is just beginning and has had few comments from other editors. There is way too much wrong in the above (i.e. just to start, my ANI excursion was closed quickly because...the person bringing it was mistaken, and my blocks with Dicklyon occurred in 2015 - maybe eight years of good behavior counts for something) but I don't have time for much more now. Please read the links provided above to see how they have been spun and misdefined. And if I keep typing I'd have less than good-faith things to say about this editor, so will now sign off for real for tonight. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@car chasm: I don't know about the rest of your report, but your extrapolation that Randy Kryn has said he never read policies based off this comment is wildly off-the-mark. You claimed that Randy Kryn cited a guideline (or at least pretended to) in this comment (or maybe in this edit summary?), but it's abundantly clear Kryn did no such thing.
Likewise, this was not a denial of the concept of fringe.
I try to be charitable in my responses to AN/I reports, but really I have no clue how you can so poorly misinterpret things this way without intentionally doing so. I recommend withdrawing this report as the most sensible action (lest you attract further scrutiny for yourself). Though, you should probably apologize to Randy Kryn as well, but I do not find that a likely occurrence, sadly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you must have missed the part in the previous edit where I cited the first sentence of WP:FRINGE, which was directly what they were responding to. Anyone who would like to do so is welcome to read the entire context at WP:FTN if they would like. Or perhaps you'd like to pop over to the page in question and look at it yourself? At any rate, as far as I can tell, I've done nothing wrong here, and so I have no concern about attracting further scrutiny. - car chasm (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@car chasm: I did see your comment Randy Kryn was responding to, but to me it just seemed like he was just disagreeing with you that fringe theory applies to this case and not whether fringe theories exist conceptually.
The logic may or may not be flawed, but that isn't really a conduct problem for a one-off comment. The FT/N thread hasn't finished playing out, so it's yet to be seen whether Kryn can provide actually sufficient evidence that this model is WP:FRINGE or not. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, if it wasn't clear the issue I took with that previous edit was that they re-opened a closed discussion with the justification "Undid revision, closed too soon, not enough participation" which certainly seems like something you'd only do if there was an issue with policy. This is a pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing. - car chasm (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

But, it is also less relevant, so I've struck it out from my report. - car chasm (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you striking that part at least. When it comes to Wikipedia:Merging, there really isn't any guideline or policy that controls it. The process is rather informal when attendance is low even if the information page makes it seem otherwise. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ජපස: and @Ad Orientem: as involved editors. - car chasm (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

There is definitely something strange going on here. I am not sure it rises to a need for admin intervention quite yet, but User:Randy Kryn is somewhat uncharacteristically engaging in WP:PROFRINGE argumentation over at WP:FTN in rather surprising ways. He seems to be arguing that Timothy Leary is considered unimpeachably WP:MAINSTREAM within the context of consciousness studies. That does not seem to be the case at all according to reliable sources that we have. However, I'm not sure there is much admins can do excepting that it is weird to have such an established editor making such a misinformed argument. jps (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Quite concerning that this has been brought to ANI. The edit war finished at the 3rd revert, and this wouldn't generally be the venue for that anyway. The rest of the complaint seems to consist of "user disagrees with me and I'm right". Well, I don't really care who is right here, but taking somebody to ANI for being politely wrong is a massive misuse of time, energy and policy. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Randy isn't really being "polite" here, but even so I think that if this ANI report is premature, it is perfectly fine to close this report. However, given that Randy is such a fixture at this place, it is somewhat understandable for a user to think that there is something off here when the rhetoric in the edit summaries and at the noticeboard is so absolutist. jps (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

To explain further, the edit war in question (apparently WP:BRD is a thing of the past) concerns the removal of Category:Timothy Leary (as well as Category:Ram Dass - Dass used both the names Dass and Richard Alpert) from Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. They were both definitely American consciousness researchers and theorists, and have been in the category for a long time (as have other individuals who were removed quickly in a category-disrupting edit run). As either a "fixture" here (call a plumber) or if I were a one-edit newbie, many who know the work of Leary and Alpert would call much of their professional work at Harvard, and their work and writings afterwards, as being that of consciousness researchers and theorists. Mainstream or not has nothing to do with this. In his time at Harvard Leary seems to easily qualify for the category, so I reverted and asked to discuss this on the talk page. And then all hell broke loose and wham, bam, here I am asking to be put into stocks for thinking that a long-term category might just fit enough to hold off on its removal in order to discuss it (We hardly knew ye, WP:BRD). As for bringing me to ANI over this, where are the coffee and donuts? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, "weird to have such an established editor making such a misinformed argument" is a good summary of why I brought this here. It's less over whether or not the topics are fringe (that's what FTN is for) and more about them engaging with the process in a way that's so unconstructive. I mean, arguing on this very board that whether or not something is mainstream has nothing to with whether or not it's fringe? What's to be done about that? - car chasm (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The spin continues. If I was one of those editors who asks for a boomerang then I'd go full kangaroo on this fellow. But I'm not. They quote me above as "arguing on this very board that whether or not something is mainstream has nothing to with whether or not it's fringe?". Where did I say that? What I said is that Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert fit the description and wording: Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists. Twisting that around to mean something else seems political in nature. By the way, I've heard a rumor that this entire thing is being discussed off-site somewhere by at least one of the participants - but nobody involved has notified me. Not cool, and doesn't seem like Wikipedian fairness. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"Mainstream or not has nothing to do with this." - this is a sentence from one of your posts above. And you appear to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS now as well about some hypothetical off-site discussion? Either make a definitive accusation or don't. - car chasm (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A sentence taken totally out of context. Again. Making me almost regret I'm not the kind of editor who asks for a boomarang (and if someone else does, I'll defend you against it, but you're stretching the limit of Wikipedian courtesy). I've heard rumors about the off-site discussion but haven't read it (seems you have to be logged-in as a member). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Leary spread the concept of the important role of "set and setting", and that is still current, e.g.:

• Set, Setting, and Psychedelics in 20th Century Psychology
• Set and Setting: Why Preparation Matters
• Set and Setting: A Randomized Study of Different Musical Genres in Supporting Psychedelic Therapy (at NIH.gov!)
• Constructing drug effects: A history of set and setting

... etc. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And please have a look at the tags fringe project editors have added to the page about one of Timothy Leary's main works Eight-circuit model of consciousness since yesterday (notice that the title includes 'model', not theory - it is an encyclopedic article summarized a model about which several books have been written). The fringe wikiproject page is all aglow about how this article should be gone, and about the deletions they have done in categories since yesterday. One of them asked their members to watch for many AfD's. I hope administrators pay attention to the actions of those editors about these subjects. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This, and related issues are currently being addressed at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which is the proper venue for handling these questions. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, so let's move it "in house" so the discussion is tucked away in the place which includes the home turf of the editors who brought this to ANI in the first place. Make accusations about what questions in particular, I really don't know what is being discussed or asked for here, and then only discuss things with the project where accusations are coming from. Sounds like a plan. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that FTN could be a neutral venue for discussing this kind of topic is itself a bit of a Fringe Theory to my mind. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If you're asserting FTN is not neutral in this area, you've got an uphill climb to make. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a clearly a sceptic magnet! Secretlondon (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there are quite a few users at FTN who seem to want to right the great wrong of people believing in woo. The practical effects of that are that posts there are the equivalent of a bat-sign. I was not the only user to point this out at the recent AfD on the Alderney UFO case. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a requirement to be provide verifiable facts, and not (intentionally or accidentally) push nonsense to our readers. Promoting woo is not factual, it's lying to people. So yes, FTN tends to be very critical when someone finds a thing saying "this woo is real."

On the flip side, you can definitely find discussions where someone asked "is this woo?" and the consensus was "no, just a notable minority view."

You act like people are on some grand crusade to eliminate wrongthink. That's not the case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

My perception of this behaviour differs from yours. The Scooby gang all descended on the Alderney UFO article, which really did not say "the woo is real", and wanted it deleted, and this is happening again in this article. My impression is of users who want to restrict access to information as they fear it will lead the gullible astray. This often coincides quite well with WP:FRINGE, but other times less so. Also, it would be good to know that the rumours of off-wiki organisation voiced in this thread are completely false. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Only fair to mention that there was actually a historical "grand crusade to eliminate wrongthink" waged by a paramilitary organization (Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia) against Wikipedia and that it was shut down by the community. To the best of my knowledge however no such disruption is ongoing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that Boynamedsue's 'bat-sign' description of FTN is spot on. However, it's very important to point out that none of the individual editors at FTN are responsible for this. Wikipedia is inherently vulnerable to promotion of fringe ideas, and it's only natural that those most interested to fight this should often share a similar POV (scientific skepticism, which by the way is a very specific POV that in no way represents the general perspective of scientists and other scholars). Yes, this does put some pressure on NPOV, but 1) there is no easy solution to that problem, and 2) it pales in comparison to the problems that we would have without FTN and the editors who are active there. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Randy is now edit warring at Eight-circuit model of consciousness, re-adding material that was challenged without adding a WP:RS, and insisting that primary sources are sufficient in violation of WP:V. No matter how prolific an editor he may be, he seems to be showing a complete lack of regard for any of our content policies whatsoever. - car chasm (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Carchasm, a single revert is not edit warring. Randy also immediately went to the talk page to discuss the revert, which Steve Quinn moved to its own section, which can be found here. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to correct the perception by Hey man im josh.

• First I edited, then copy edited that edit, at the article Eight-circuit model of consciousness [20], [21]. Notice in the edit history one of the things I wrote was "Please discuss on talk before reverting per WP:BRD."
• So rather than discuss the edit, Randy Kryn reverted my edit [22]. Notice in the edit history they are saying "reverted, please respect BRD and discuss on the talk page" as if they are taking the initiative on BRD or something like that. At the least it confuses the situation or seems to muddy the waters.
• Then they come to the talk page [23]. Here they make an assertion that "Have reverted your overall full-scale deletion." This is inaccurate, an exaggeration, and not collegial.
• Then I create a new section and reply [24]. The reply is at the bottom of the diff where I say, please revert your edit and so on.
• Kyrn then replies, [25] saying in part what I did "was an entire wholesale deletion which gutted the article." This is inaccurate and an exaggeration again. This is not conducive to collaboration. In the same response he seems to say that my article edit "...presents the entirety of the page." Again if he is referring to my edit in the article then this is inaccurate and exaggeration.
• My last response [26] recounted the three inaccurate statements he just posted. And I referred to them as exaggerations.
• He replied to that [27] and then I didn't see any point in continuing the conversation at that time.

• Also, in a separate Deletion discussion they appear to be engaged in bludgeoning Here. They also seem to go off the rails regarding my ivote [28] calling it wp:revenge and saying we had a "major disagreement" (at Eight-circuits). I didn't see it as a major disagreement nor do I see that discussion as productive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That's still not edit-warring though, is it? Just seems a pretty run of the mill content disagreement. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was edit warring. Please read what I said. And it is not a run of the mill content disagreement. They do not like to cooperate and seem unable to accept other's contributions as valid. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear what perception of mine you are trying to correct. I was pointing out that a single revert is not considered edit warring. Your edit summary, which essentially stated "do not revert without discussion", does not automatically protect your edit from being reverted. They reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO and began a discussion immediately after doing so. It's fine if you want to argue specific points about their editing, but that's not edit warring, that's what's supposed to be done based on WP:BRD. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was edit warring. Please read what I said. And you're overlooking how they were exaggerating during the discussion, making that discussion untenable - that's a behavioral problem. And also, bludgeoning in another discussion. A behavioral problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Car Chasm did not adequately demonstrate part of the impetus for filing:

• Here CC removes a parent category from another category [29]
• Here Kryn reverts [30]
• Here CC removes the category again [31]
• Kyrn reverts [32] calling this edit warring.
• Here the category is removed again by another editor [33]
• Kyrn reverts that edit [34].
• And the faldaral stops with the other editor [35].
• I'm not taking sides on this other than to show how persistent Kyrn can be. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well I think this ANI isn't really going to go anywhere. I think it is probably premature and I support closing this thread. For my part, maybe I can think of ways I can communicate better. And my original edit at Eight-circuits may not have been the best decision and it caused upset. I take responsibility for that. I should have opened a dialogue first. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts. So, I very nearly took a leap with a NAC a couple of hours ago, because I really think there is very little more to be accomplished here at the moment aside from maybe a few more reminders about process. But I decided I wanted to look into the interactions at the affected articles a little more closely (having already checked up on most the above diffs and the FTN discussion as this thread progressed over the last couple of days. And I think maybe just some comments will suffice, especially in light of Steve's comments immediately above.

I'll start by being honest that I think this filing was a bit premature, as others have pushed about above. Car chasm, I'm not saying I don't think your concerns are all invalid, but honestly, you didn't appropriately avail yourself of community processes for establishing a firm consensus in favour of your preferred outcome, nor did you wait for the FTN discussion to conclude before coming here. And I again agree with others above that many of your reasons presented for doing so are a little exaggerated or seem to not imply as much AGF as perhaps you could. You're only maybe sufficient reason for bringing this to ANX is the initial claim of edit warring, but it's an edge case at best, and WP:ANEW is where such a report belongs anyway. I appreciate the extra context Steve has provided as to all that, which does bolster the case a little, but I still feel the proper course of action here was something like an RfC and then coming here if Randy did not accept consensus. And I say this as someone who shares some of your concerns about the content in dispute. With regard to at least Eight-circuits article, Randy is certainly the one who is better positioned to invoke BRD. Unless I am missing something obvious, Steve removed a pretty significant chunk of the article, consisting mostly or entirely of content which had been in it for years. That is almost always treated as the B in a BRD analysis, and Randy reverting that is hard to swallow as "edit warring". Steve, to esteemable credit, suggests himself that perhaps that could have been discussed first, and I agree with that assessment. That he didn't is also no biggie, but at this point, I think the ball is in the court of those who want to make these extensive changes. Of course, that said, the actual WP:ONUS/burden of proof is also on Randy to justify retention. Again, simple way forward here: RfC.

Which actually gives me a segueway to what I wanted to say next. I have some direct experience of Randy myself, mainly as a random respondent to a couple of RfCs on content disputes he was party too. I know he can me a little fullsteam-ahead and hard to move off his positions at times: as I recall, I had to join with sentiments from other respondents on at least a couple of occasions to get him to slow his roll just a little. On the other hand, the other things I remember about him are that he is a very skilled editor, generally makes a solid effort to justify his position within policy constraints, and respects consensus if he exhausts his opportunities to change it. I agree there might be a patina of OWN here, but I do believe that not only will Randy drop the stick if you put together a strong enough consensus, but that actually there's almost certainly a wide area of middle ground here that is not being explored as yet, and that this got a little more antagonistic than it needed to be kind of fast. There's clearly discussion to be had here (and again, I think Steve is pointing the way on how to accomplish that). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, some observations about the finer details of the underlying disputes. I'm going to keep these comments short because they get into content rather than behavioural areas (not the purview of ANI), but they do intermingle with the nature of the dispute--and as someone who sits at the intersection of having some background in cognitive science and having a lot of experience editing scientific/MEDRS articles in general on en.wikipedia, I think I might have some brief input that could be of some small value. First, regarding the question of whether Leary constitutes a "consciousness researcher". That is a very nuanced question for our purposes here, coming down (as it must) to an analysis of WEIGHT. On the one hand, absolutely the man has been described as such in RS. But honestly, even going back in time to the heyday of his notable activities (and notoriety), probably this label was used more so in mainstream accounts than in serious academic works: he is not really a serious researcher in the areas of cognitive biopsychology that relate to the exploration of consciousness or subjects like the study of qualia, evolutionary psychology, or computational models of the mind, all of which are topics that the pseudoscience contained in these articles touches upon. Nor is he even a particularly influential name in the serious exercise of the philosophy adjacent to this science.

Car chasm is certainly correct that there is a real concern here that association with terminology that today has a particular attachment to specific fields of inquiry in hard cognitive science runs a serious risk of bootstrapping this content to a status where it may be perceived by the semi-informed reader as something mainstream. When the reality is, most of it lands somewhere between "highly dubious" and "hallucinogen-inspired nonsense". On the other hand, the man is, in a sense, a major influence on the non-clinical discussion of these topics in the mainstream. How do we balance these factors? Well, again, pretty clearly and RfC issue. Or issues, rather, as I think this is, unfortunately, going to take a few sequential discussions to dial in all the language in dispute. Meanwhile, I personally think the content removed from/currently re-added to the Eight-circuit article actually serves to demonstrate how wacky these ideas are, and I think that probably comes across for a lot of readers who aren't already predisposed to psuedoscientific concepts of the mind. But I'm aware I'm not exactly a typical reader when it comes to these articles, and the influence this content could have on a subset of readers just barely into an exploration of neurophysiology and mainstream research models of perception might be greater than I appreciate. But again, consensus for those issues can be established in the relevant articles through normal process (and liberal notices at some relevant WikiProjects, if I may suggest).

Well, just as well I didn't NAC this: not even a fourth of that would have fit into a reasonably-sized results box! But my perspective in a nutshell: it looks like the parties here all have fairly reasonable perspective and a generally productive editorial style. They just missed the first boat on hammering this out constructively. Luckily there's as many of those ferries in the day as one is willing to give themselves. RfC, peeps! Or did I mention that already? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this discussion in a day, and it's like Jack and the Beanstalk, growing and growing. Thanks for the many comments. Now someone else has reverted my edit at the 8-circuit page and the article is back to being all but gutted of full-descriptor comment, so I've asked on the talk page for a fuller reason. The long-term language should be returned and then worked on from there, removing it to the extent its been removed is WP:OWN territory (we all own the page apparently). As for the fringe theory project (and please take note that Leary's model exists as a model, and not a theory - big difference, so I don't know why the fringe project is so involved and afluffle about this), there is no woo in Leary's work being discussed. In the 1950s he was acknowledged as a pioneer in standard personality testing, and then he further explore personality and consciousness in his 8-circuit model. And in reply to the concern that I've accused an editor of revenge voting, yes, I did, and no explanation has been given for the coinkidink of the vote. Anyway, this gets long, so again, thanks everyone, pro and con, for expanding this into an interesting and probably useful discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you really arguing that, because the 8-circuit page says it's a "model", it doesn't fit the defining first sentence of FRINGE which says the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Does that mean you believe sasquatch, Ayurveda, indigo children, etc. are not under the purview of FRINGE because they aren't explicitly called "theories"? What do you think models are based on? JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The 8-circuit model page is a garbage walled garden consisting entirely of an in-wooniverse description of the model sourced exclusively to its practitioners and bizarre 90s-HTML-coded new-age blogs like "Earth Portals". It should be TNT'd. JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding there is no woo in Leary's work being discussed.

The first four circuits concern themselves with life on Earth, and the survival of the human species. The last four circuits are post-terrestrial, and concern themselves with the evolution of the human species as represented by so-called altered states of consciousness, enlightenment, mystical experiences, psychedelic states of mind, and psychic abilities.^{[citation needed]} The proposal suggests that these altered states of consciousness are recently realized, but not widely utilized. Leary described the first four as "larval circuits", necessary for surviving and functioning in a terrestrial human society, and proposed that the post terrestrial circuits will be useful for future humans who, through a predetermined script, continue to act on their urge to migrate to outer space and live extra-terrestrially.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for not trying a NAC - I believe you've misunderstood the nature of this issue if you think this is about the content dispute, as explained in both my original report and below. WP:IDHT is in the header, not sure how you missed that. - car chasm (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Request - Can someone uninvolved please collapse everything from this comment up to Snowrise's? This didn't go anywhere and I'm not sure why they wrote so much but I don't feel they've added anything new to the discussion. - car chasm (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Question - Why is this at WP:ANI? Why can't the Fringe Theory Noticeboard be the proper forum for an editor insisting on taking the fringe view that Timothy Leary is a serious scholar? Why bring this dispute here? I realize that WP:ANI can sanction User:Randy Kryn, but that hasn't been proposed, and I don't think it is in order anyway. So why are we on this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Answered above, and nothing so far from Randy on this topic has given me the impression he's willing to get the point. Several people have now told him the exact same thing and he continues to insist that the fact that Leary has a "model" and not a "theory" somehow makes it not WP:FRINGE! This is a clear case of WP:IDHT, and RfC or other process cannot resolve it, it is an issue of editor behavior and not about the content dispute. - car chasm (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  A bit unrelated, but this user is persistent and repeating their own views (by not following the policy or guidelines) despite what has been written about the discussion topic on another page, just like what you wrote above. ภץאคгöร 07:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  Now a further pile-on? The dispute at Some Like It Hot is that Nyxaros came by, removed two long-term images, won't allow me to put those back, and, even odder, won't allow the addition of the fair-use Some Like It Hot trailer - and I'm the bad guy? I've asked for help on this at WikiProject Film. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't write you are the "bad guy". You recently added these "long-term" files and denied a valid refinement. Instead, you presented your own thoughts and how you think things should be. Although I showed the information page and the guideline, and offered improvement ideas for your additions, I have observed that you have been following a repetitive attitude similar to what other editors have mentioned here. I encourage you to provide reliable info (from a guideline or policy) that supports your views, and to re-read and re-examine the summaries and messages I (and others) have written on talk pages, rather than repeating your views. ภץאคгöร 18:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "... denied a valid refinement." – Does this translate to: "reverted a non-policy-based deletion of content"? – .Raven  ^.talk 06:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is clear from this comment alone that you are not following the discussion(s) well and not doing much to contribute to this one's conclusion, so why bother with a snarky remark? No one has time for that. ภץאคгöร 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  This section and the other page(s) cited above show why the user ignores the comments of other users and adopts a "my way or the highway" attitude, adding what he wants to pages when he could fix the problems. Partially reverted again, his reason is "no reason on Earth or Wikipedia not to include" and completely ignoring all the messages and discussions. In conclusion, these are just what I and other editor(s) here have observed. I hope the user will try to be more constructive and find common ground with others (for example, by reviewing the messages they received as I mentioned above). ภץאคгöร 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• No, that's not going to happen. We don't hat comments just because you happen to disagree with the assessment contained therein. Nothing I said was not already told to you by at least two people before I commented (with the overall assessment that bringing it here was premature also being reiterated by Robert immediately above: the fourth editor to tell you that). Is Randy clearly wrong about some of the underlying content issues? Yes, I think so. Kind of profoundly, honestly. In fact, I've joined one of the discussions now to tell him as much and add a little bit of extra emphasis to try to get him to moderate his approach. But has he violated policies in such a way that he's going to get sanctioned just for sticking to his guns? No, not as yet. He's verging on tendentiousness, but he hasn't crossed that line. You can't just invoke "WP:IDHT" like a talisman at ANI and expect the community to rush in: editors are allowed to be IDHT with regard to content (i.e. have a different view of content issues and not concede to yours). Only where the IDHT relates to behavioural issues does it become a matter for ANI.

At the point that it was just you, Randy, and another editor (and Randy had BRD on his side, because the version he was arguing for was the longstanding, stable version of the article), your argument for "edit warring" was extremely weak (and involved you violating the policy at least as much as him, if not more). As of now, that has changed, because there are now five of us on the Eight Circuit article talk page telling him his views on the sourcing are not consistent with policy. So now, if he tries to add the content back in (without first forming a new consensus to support that approach), it definitely will be edit warring and tendentious on his part, and I'm sure more of us will be supportive of taking action. But based on what has transpired so far, I'm not sure what you think we would (or even can) do? Especially considering you played the edit war game with him at length to enforce your preferred version, rather than just taking the matter straight to AN3, our hands are a little tied. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As for removing the long-term use descriptors from the page on Timothy Leary's model of personality development, Leary was a pioneer of 1950s personality tests and studies while at Harvard who then came up with the 8-circuit model for personality development and solidification on which full books have been written. Because Leary's fifty-year-old yet still-read and functional model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature doesn't seem to explain why fringe editors are trying to saddle his legacy with flat-Earth no-Moon-landing bigfeets to justify gutting the long-term use page descriptors. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

FRINGE explicitly requires minority and fringe ideas to be contextualized with the mainstream stance on those ideas. You said it yourself: ...Leary's [...] model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature. Because Leary's model has only (according to the sourcing in the article) been reviewed significantly by other fringe proponents who subscribe to his beliefs (not to mention co-published with him), it currently fails independence and fails NFRINGE. That warrants at least a major gutting of the article, and if no mainstream academic sources discussing it can be found it should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, as noted above, the concept that "set and setting" matter (which Leary popularized) is still current. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok? Is that an integral part of his 8-circuit model? JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No; that was in relation to the issue of Leary's ideas "being discussed in present-day professional literature", the criterion you just cited for not being FRINGE. And that in turn suffices to qualify him for the category "consciousness researcher"... though, BTW, where is it written that this category excludes FRINGE? – .Raven  ^.talk 05:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

? Read the paragraphs above. We are discussing the eight-circuit model (...Leary's [...] model is not being discussed in present-day professional literature), not random other ideas from Leary. JoelleJay (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Really? Insisting that Leary himself does not fit Category:American consciousness researchers and theorists is sheerly about the eight-circuit model? Then, my goodness, Einstein's putting down quantum physics (because "He does not play dice") should be enough to remove him from those "physicist" categories, right? We can disregard all the useful contributions if we can find one not useful, yeah? – .Raven  ^.talk 21:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

lol, Here's what the 8-circuit page looked like couple of days ago. Here's what it looks like now. Admins, can I revert yet? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This is really just stealth deletion, isn't it? Quite concerning. Boynamedsue (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

We're basically oscillating between two different extremes as this point. Randy seems to lionize Leary and wants an exhaustive discussion of the topic, framing it as if it were a mainstream model built on academic work (it isn't). There is a clear consensus on the talk page that the article as written is far too based upon a couple of WP:PRIMARY works produced by Leary and an associate, and that the content overall lacks perspective and appropriate contextualization. Some have called for TNT of the article, but I see no concrete consensus on the talk page for an extensive blanking, or indeed for any specific courses of action: merely an agreement that the sourcing is inadequate for the volume of the coverage and that there are issues with tone. Advocates on both sides should be showing a little more restraint, imo. My sense of the situation with the sourcing and the impact of relevant policies is that the content will ultimately be radically reduced. But I do believe the subject is ultimately notable, so I'm not sure what a temporary TNT really accomplishes. Far, far superior to have a more neutral article which accurately situates and contextualizes the subject as being the product of new-age psuedo-mysticism filtered through the a quasi-scientific looking framework. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... the article as written is far too based upon a couple of WP:PRIMARY works..." – Are we discussing Psychotherapy [later correction: Psychoanalysis was intended, see below], which heavily cites WP:PRIMARY works by Sigmund Freud and associates? Should we blank that article as FRINGE? After all, as Joelle Jay quoted, "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." – and the only voices in support are thereby, ipso facto, "adherents". – .Raven  ^.talk 06:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Psychotherapy is not a FRINGE topic as a whole, any aspects in the article that are both FRINGE and DUE are contextualized with the mainstream stance, and a scan of the first 50 sources doesn't show a single source by Freud or his associates and very few primary sources. Please familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:PRIMARY. JoelleJay (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please forgive my misnaming Psychoanalysis, which cites Freud as footnotes 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, and 50; leaving entirely aside his "associates" and/or "adherents". – .Raven  ^.talk 08:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time to read over that 135kb article, but if it indeed fails to describe Freudian psychoanalysis as a historical and largely deprecated system for therapy and cites only primary literature from proponents rather than critical analysis from mainstream academia, then yes those portions should be removed. JoelleJay (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

After three medium-longish lede paragraphs, there's one 3-line paragraph saying in part: "Psychoanalysis is a controversial discipline, and its effectiveness as a treatment has been contested, although it retains influence within psychiatry." I'll await your having time to read it and comment. In the meantime, is Freud widely considered "FRINGE"? – .Raven  ^.talk 16:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT applies, as well as WP:OTHERSTUFF. You don't get to demand JoelleJay read & edit a completely unrelated article for their opinion to be valid. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I won't pretend to understand the underlying content issues, but I can read diffs perfectly well and it seems quite clear that the OP's original case was incredibly weak, with a couple of clear misinterpretations being debunked by MJL very early in this thread. IMO, it's a bit concerning that the OP never acknowledged the problems with their evidence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

More stuff

Kryn has a recent history of engaging in tendentious editing. This shows that last December's ANI (as posted by the OP above and here) had no effect on his behavior. The reason for posting this is I think sanctions are needed to interrupt this kind of editing. .

• Most recently they removed the notability tag from "Eight Circuits" [36] which contravenes a strong consensus on the talk page here and here The consensus is that this topic is not covered by independent sources. I requested that he restore the tag [37] but this has been ignored. Also, on the talk page, it is clear he is trying to resist consensus[38]. Also after clear consensus is demonstrated on the talk page, even at this ANI he is asking the Admins if he can revert the page back to his preferred version [39] (in so many words).

• Also recently he has been editing tendenitously at "Some Like It Hot." This dispute has been mentioned in this ANI [40], [41].

-Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [42] with the rationale: "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)

-Kryn reverts misrepsenting Nyxaros rationale in the edit history [43].

-Nyxaros reverts [44] pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative."

-Kryn reverts [45] trying to change the nexus of the issue without being grounded in WP:PAG.

-Here Kryn restores [46] image and trailer.

-Here [47] Nyxaros removes the trailer and writes "You forgot the talk page discussion AND added unsourced "Faro Island Film Festival" awards ( not notable)? Do not own."

-Here Kryn reverts again [48].

There is no reason for Kryn to keep editing this stuff back in without discussion, when it has been pointed out this is a policy or guideline issue. Obviously, Nyxaros is trying to keep this page in agreement with WP:PAG. And for insight into this - see the talk page discussion Talk page discussion. Also, Kryn does avoid the bright line of 3RR but edits the article to their their preferred version over the period of days.

• As recently as May 18 he has engaged in tendentious editing at Witchcraft.

Here he takes it right up to the line with three reversions:

- First [49],

- Second [50], (Here he cites BLP, but not based on the actual guideline, rather based on knowing "many witches, all fine people [and]....and makes Wikipedia, in its voice, demean hundreds of thousands of individuals and readers who identify as witches.")

-Third [51]

Also, as noted on the talk page, apparently he was editing against consensus [52], [53]. :Also, it appears a group of editors keeps this article in agreement with policies and guidelines, according to those diffs. Here [54] he is admonished to "Read sources and seek consensus on talk. This is about the worldwide definition, not modern redefinitions as found in new religious movements like Wicca."

• Regarding Cliffs at Étretat (Moscow), on May 14 Kryn recieved feedback on his talkpage [55] that says 'm not saying it's not a good gallery, what I am saying is that it is wholly unsourced. And please, as per WP:BURDEN, and please also see the 2nd point in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. This pertains to kryn's editing behavior on this article.

Here an editor adds a tag noting that only one source is used in the entire article [title=Cliffs_at_] [56] which contains sixteen images.

Here Kryn removes that tag [57]

here the same editor removes images from the page due to lack of reliable sourcing. [58]

Here Kryn restores the images in protest [59]

Here the editor removes the images again [60] and explains: I am saying it is wholly uncited, this is wholly WP:OR, and has been explained to you, as per WP:BURDEN, re-adding without providing a valid reference is disruptive editing.

And there it stops. However, this again shows behavior that is not collaborative.

I can't see going back further than this. There is also what has been posted above [61]. In any case, the reason for posting this is to show that Kryn unpredictably engages in disruptive editing. It seems from the above, there is no set pattern other than it happens. Hence, I am proposing a sanction of 1RR for a period of one month to dissuade engaging in this behavior over time. Additionally, they can continue focusing on regular editing that doesn't involve conflict. I am sorry to say that random editors should not have to endure this type of behavior.---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

For comparison with Randy Kryn's experience: I've participated in conversations with the content-blanking group on Talk:Eight-circuit model of consciousness, and finally @Snow Rise: invited me "to draft and add content to the article right this minute". I did so, my first attempt at an edit to that article, restoring a diff with the full text and references (that had been blanked down to one sentence and two refs); converted those refs to cite and sfn templates; added a few more, including text about reactions from wiki-article Neurologic (book), and replacing multiple "citation needed" tags with cites; incorporated June 2023 edits by @Randy Kryn and Lettherebedarklight:; even added the fair notice to readers, in body text: "'This model doesn't restrict its sources to just mainstream psychology or neurology, but uses concepts or metaphors from diverse modern sciences, transpersonal psychology, and Eastern spiritual traditions which perceive all objects and phenomena as various interrelated aspects of a single supreme reality. That blend has sparked criticism from some as "fringe" science or worse.[cited]" Then, in edit-comment and talkpage, I welcomed further references on critical responses.

The response was (1) blanking most of the article again; (2) replacing that just-quoted paragraph with "The model lacks scientific credibility and has largely been ignored in academia." — with no citation actually supporting it, as the citation after it now is still the one I'd added, a journalistic source rather than either a scientific or an academic source. On top of which I got on my talk page a complaint of "STONEWALLING" [emphasis in original], for, again, my first edit there.

Now this is a plain content dispute, not even edit-warring (with me, anyway), but I think it sheds some light on what Randy Kryn has had to go through, and on the degree of sincerity and good faith shown by the same people who confronted and accused him. I'm disappointed in them. – .Raven  .talk 01:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my involvement there pretty thoroughly and through selective presentation of the facts. My involvement with that article started with this ANI filing, and I only went to the talk page to argue (against strong consensus, mind you) that Randy and you were correct, insofar as this topic was notable and every effort should be made to try to maintain some version of it, within the constraints of relevant content policies, including WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. Instead for weeks, since Randy bowed out, you have effectively waged a one person diatribe against every other one of the half dozen or so editors on the talk page aside from myself (and now including me) arguing that it was injustice that most of the content on the article had been deleted. I agreed that I would have preferred that the discussion had preceded the removals, but pointed out that the fact was that there was now clear and overwhelming consensus for the content being deleted, and that I understood some of the policy reasons why the other editors argued it had to go.

Nevertheless, for most of that discussion, I remained firmly of the opinion that an article could (and should) be maintained there. However, there had been effectively no effort to generate content that actually does frame the topic appropriately, and after a straw poll about redirecting the page was up for almost two weeks, I was prodded by another editor to give my perspective on where to go from here. I reluctantly had to join the strong consensus view that the advocates for the article had not met their burden for showing that policy-compliant content, based on adequate non-PRIMARY, MEDRS sourcing, could be generated at this time. Though I also expressed a strong opinion that the article should remain redirected only so long as it took to create a version which is consistent with policy concerns raised by the consensus. More strenuous objections from you followed, over the course of days. In an effort to demonstrate that I was not deaf or entirely unsympathetic to your position, I told you that if you could draft a new version of the article that was consistent with the relevant policy issues that had been raised by others there, I would surely support you if someone tried to remove it reflexively. Instead, you merely reintroduced a version of the article previously rejected by the consensus with minor cosmetic changes.

Contrary to what you have implied above, I did not then delete that content: I have not edited the article so much as a single time. I went to the talk page with the hope of facilitating a middle ground solution and preserving a topic I felt was at least minimally notable. I did, however, tell you that I had exhausted my interest in trying to push against consensus to find a middle ground solution, because I felt you had squandered our last opportunity to maintain the article in the shortterm, when you reintroduced content that the others (i.e. the WP:CONSENSUS) had already rejected as unacceptable. Which action was either a disingenuous/WP:POINTY response to my suggestion, or else a massive display of WP:IDHT as to what their concerns were. Either way, I said, you were on your own in pushing against them from here. You then immediately responded by coming here to suggest that I had told you to re-add the content, and then deleted the content when you did so, neither fact of which is true. Also, as to your "emphasis in the original" above, what I actually did was reference the wikilink, WP:STONEWALLING, which you edited here to "STONEWALLING (emphasis in the original)" to make it look like I was "shouting" at you. Pretty bold. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

In short, I am not particularly concerned that you are disappointed in me. I wasted weeks in a fruitless effort to help you keep some version of the article live, despite near-unanimous consensus against that approach from everyone else on the article--because I felt it was the right thing to do. And you have chosen to respond to that by distorting the facts here to imply malfeasance on my part the very second I withdrew what support I had left, after you decided to restore content you knew the consensus would not abide by.

For who want to understand the realities of this dispute, I recommend a review of the talk page, if you have patience to try to parse a discussion that has gone in circles (admittedly in part because of my ultimately pointless efforts to try to bridge the gap between the two sides). At this point, with my pulling back and Randy having already thrown in the towel, I think it is clear that there is no else aside from Raven still pushing to maintain the content in question and someone who is freshly un-WP:INVOLVED, as I once was, should step in to tell them it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and accept consensus. Preferably an admin, as I don't think they are likely to listen to anyone else, based on my experience trying to get them to compromise with the majority. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I would be happy to hear from the other participants in that discussion, Steve Quinn, fiveby, Viriditas, carchasm, Shibbolethink, JoelleJay, and of course Randy, who was just pinged by Raven above, if any of them feel I have misrepresented the consensus position, my activity in the discussion, or any other relevant facts. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems about right. I'll note that Raven has also here misrepresented my edits reverting his reintroduction of disputed content, claiming that the "lacking scientific credibility" statement I added is not properly sourced when it in fact directly cites a passage from the same page Raven had cited (which he used to support the topic being called 'fringe or worse by some' because it 'blended psychology with other disciplines'--ironically, a synthesis that is actually NOT supported by that source!).

After seeing his other contributions to AN/I, my opinion is that this is a deliberately contrarian bludgeoning campaign that is indistinguishable from trolling (if it isn't just IDHT CIR issues), and I would support some sort of sanction to prevent more time being wasted. Pinging @Izno who hatted a previous vapid back-and-forth between Raven and me. JoelleJay (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree this is pretty much a campaign to bludgeon the process. The offer linked above [62] was to create a Sandbox page with policy compliant content. It literally uses the word "Sandbox. " Also, Snow pointed out the lack of policy compliance and why the version they reverted back to [63] was "deeply problematic with regard to multiple core content policies". I do see this as case of IDHT and editing against consensus. I also agree that they misrepresented JoelleJay's edits, as stated above. After this .Raven will post endless refutations using arguments not generally supported by policies. They cannot and seemingly will not accept consensus [64]. It's mostly they are right and you are wrong - whoever "you" happen to be. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I quoted accurately, "to draft and add content to the article right this minute". [emphasis added] If you want to quote a different section of text making a different suggestion, go ahead, but don't pretend it's a misquote on my part. – .Raven  .talk 07:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no, you've selectively quoted me, to give the impression I greenlit you to ignore consensus and restore the version you wanted to restore. Here's what I actually said, without all the context stripped out:

"Now, do I think that some small portion of the version you just linked could have been preserved at the outset of the dispute between randy and others? Maybe a portion. But the majority of it, as written, simply is miles away from compliant with basic content policies. And I certainly at this juncture understand why the consensus is that the only way forward is a redirect for the time being. But for the nth time: if you want to write a version of it that is, just do it. Only one person has shown interest in closing the discussion soon, and even they have said they are going to wait at least seven days before requesting a close. Sandbox it. Hell, if you want to draft and add content to the article right this minute, and it complies with WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE, and someone reflexively removes it, I'll support you. The version you keep citing is clearly not acceptable, in numerous ways. But if you can make a version of it work, more power to you. You'll have my support and my compliments."

And paragraphs and paragraphs of discussion before that which make it abundantly clear I was not telling you to do what you had been insisting we do for days: restore your preferred version and work from there. Look, I feel bad that you're sore about this, but I'm not personally authorized to unilaterally set aside consensus--and if I was, I wouldn't. And I feel I went to pretty substantial efforts to be clear to distinguish that I was suggesting you draft new content that took pains to address the issues raised by the consensus. And that from what I could tell from the positions of others, there would probably then be a reconsideration of the result of the straw poll. I was careful to phrase it quite exclusive to any interpretation that could reasonably be taken to say "Restore 200,000 bits of content removed with consensus, where that restoration is unambiguously opposed by the majority here--I've got your back."

Further, you've spent the last two and a half weeks relentlessly saying "We should restore the article to the 'status quo ante' version by Randy and work on it from there." Only to be told every time, by just about everyone there "No, everyone agrees that version is almost entirely constructed of content that violates one policy or another." Over and over, you've insisted on that solution, and I think almost everyone on that TP has told you some version of "That's not the way forward--it's not going to happen." Even I, who want an article there, have told you this is the part of the consensus I agree with. But, even if you did convince me to take that approach, again: I just do not have the personal mandate to thwart a clear WP:Local consensus on the matter.

Now, others are asking above how much of this is intentional bludgeon and how IDHT, and I honestly don't know, but your willingness to selectively quote others is starting to make WP:AGF difficult. Beyond that, you have been coming full bore at anyone and everyone (here in the ANI and on the talk page) from pretty much word go, aside from Randy. Indeed it was that energy that I was hoping to channel into something productive when I recommended you could always sandbox a better version. I felt you had an opportunity to draft something policy-consistent and make everyone else choke on it, honestly. But instead you twisted my advice into "go ahead and do the thing you want to do, but that everyone else here agrees is not the thing to be done.", and no part of what I actually urged you to do is consistent with that.

You are experienced enough I wouldn't expect to have to explain to you repeatedly why we have to accept consensus, whether we like it or not. Seriously, you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one. I was the closest thing you had left to an ally on the content issues, and even I am fed up with your discussion style. You're going to get page-banned (at best) if this continues: I would bet dollars to doughnuts on it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

And which result, let me hasten to add, I would consider a very poor outcome. Remember, I'm the other guy on that talk page who wants an article there, ideally. I went from this ANI, to that talk page specifically to try to make that happen. So the situation here sucks for me. We have one editor who has walked away, rather than work within the constraints wanted by the other editors there, and second who so adamantly refuses to accept consensus on how to move forward from here, they will probably be removed from the space in the long run. Talk about a worst case scenario for me. I agree there is an article here, but I haven't the compunction or time to write it by myself. So I guess we're not going to have an article, because neither one of you can work within what the consensus is asking for, with regard to sourcing, and tone, and process--all of which is not at all unreasonable, and certainly doable. Frankly, as the two people I am in common cause with as to the question of whether this should be an article....you guys aren't making this easy! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

In response to JoelleJay finally providing in talk some of the "further references on critical responses" I had welcomed, I gladly re-formatted them as cite templates and added them to the article as refs to the paragraph on that topic. Today I come here and see "neither one of you can work within what the consensus is asking for, with regard to sourcing" — so should I revert that edit myself, then? – .Raven  .talk 18:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

> "not properly sourced when it in fact directly cites a passage from the same page Raven had cited" – I cited a quote of two non-scientists disparaging Leary's ideas, to support (correct quote) "That blend has sparked criticism from some as 'fringe' science or worse." (You actually deleted "Journalist John Bryan said that Leary sounded 'like a Raving Madman from Outer Space. It was at this point that many of his former followers decided that Tim had overdosed—both on acid and on life.'" ... and left just the cultural historian.) But neither one, nor even both together, were scientists, which leaves unsupported the new claim purportedly based on that cite: "The model lacks scientific credibility and has largely been ignored in academia."

To point out this elementary fact, which you keep ignoring, is now, per you, "a deliberately contrarian bludgeoning campaign that is indistinguishable from trolling"? Wow. – .Raven  .talk 07:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I asked you to read WP:PARITY, and apparently you did not.

In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. [...] The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

And yes, I am aware I deleted the quotes you added in the ref note: they were completely irrelevant to 8CM and were deeply misrepresented in the article. What is absurd is that you are apparently asserting your quoted characterization of Leary by "two non-scientists" is ok to support That blend has sparked criticism from some as 'fringe' science or worse -- OR that doesn't even apply to 8CM, and which improperly frames patently ludicrous ideas as if they were only disputed by "some" -- but text that directly describes 8CM as an "attempt at scientific credibility [that] was doomed to fail", "would never be taken seriously by the establishment", and for which "the number of people who were prepared to [...] spend time studying [it] was small" is somehow not acceptable to support the text The model lacks scientific credibility and has largely been ignored in academia just because it's made by the same non-scientist you quoted. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and apparently the google books view I was using for the page numbers puts the quote I included on page 236-37, which happened to be the same page you had for your quote, but these are not actually on the same page. Anyway pointing out this coincidence is completely irrelevant to this discussion other than to clarify why your material was not applicable to 8CM and mine is. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• As noted, I've kept away from the Leary/Wilson discussion because I felt my presence was polarizing for some reason (the same "for some reason" I was brought to ANI, personally criticized off-site, maybe strained a friendship or two, etc.), and it seems .Raven has since become the lightning rod for the fringe group. Thanks for putting much work and thoughts into the article talk page, .Raven, Snow Rise, and others, and the back-and-forth debate shows that the topic self-contains various ways of summarizing it. I just added my comment to the talk page 'Straw poll', and copy it here as part of my reply:

"Keep, since this is a model in the company of ancient traditional ways of defining and explaining human consciousness (please read all of the Buddhist, Hindu, and yoga articles etc. concerning the modeling of consciousness, viable stand-alone pages) it does not fit the definition of fringe. The model does not claim to be science or neither proves or asks for the existence or need for experimental replication, thus making no claims based on proof. It simply puts forward a modeling derived from the experiences and thoughts of Leary, and then further built upon ten years later by Wilson (whose writings, as I've discussed, seem applicable enough as a WP:SECONDARY source to fulfill Wikipedia criteria). Leary could be said to be either thousands of years behind or ahead of his time, and his model fits better with the ancient texts as seen through the prism of what he put his brain through (and honestly seemed to come out the better for, what a beautiful human being he was in life). His contemporary addition to the ancient literature, as later added to by the analysis and commentary of Wilson, does not fall within science and so has nothing to do with fringe." Randy Kryn (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Replying to a ping from User:Snow Rise: I'm at a point in my life where I'm trying to dial back the drama. I don't know if I have anything useful to add to this discussion. I've had fruitful editing experiences with Randy outside this topic area, mostly in the visual arts domain; but my recent experience with Randy in the Leary topic area has shown that he's somewhat stubborn, resistant to change, and refusing to budge from his position. The thing is, that would describe most of humanity, so Randy is displaying what must be described as normal behavior, but admittedly, behavior not conducive to harmonious editing. I don't think Randy is going to change and I don't expect him to. As for Raven, I really appreciate their insight into this discussion and look forward to more of their contributions. I honestly think they are trying to do the right thing but are running up against a lot of opposition to their approach, which could benefit from being taken down a notch or two. I feel like I've had six cups of coffee after reading a Raven reply, and that's saying something. As for Snow Rise, they have gone above and beyond trying to solve this issue, and frankly, Wikimedia should be paying them at this point. I honestly think the best thing is to close this discussion thread and to let the consensus play out in the Leary article. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks Viriditas. Maybe I'm not as stubborn as you may think yet, but might be, although the Leary topic seems like just a difference of opinion. Agreed that Snow Rise should be paid, and paid well, which can also be said of yourself and others. As for me, as I say at times, I found a quarter at a Wikiconference once but am still trying to work above that pay grade. I'm a bit surprised this discussion is still open, wasn't aware of that until .Raven pinged above. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you both so much: what immensely kind things to say! For the record, whatever happens with the current !vote, I can be pinged to reliably show up and say that article is worth writing. Whether it's tomorrow or a month from now or whenever. I think Leary and his thinking are absolutely fascinating. I don't think that anything he did after his academic career qualifies as scientific research, or even what would be most accurately called scientific theorizing, but that doesn't mean I don't value the uniqueness of the man's brain. How do I put this...if Leary had never been a counter-culture icon, but rather a completely obscure figure, and then suddenly someone made a movie about this life, you'd watch it and say "This has to be the laziest Hollywood exaggeration--no way a tenth of this happened." But no--it happened! It all happened! And I do believe at some point in the discussion there I may have called the 8CMoC something along the lines of the "space pioneer precog theory of time-travelling neurobiology", but here's the thing: what editor in their right mind doesn't love the idea of telling people about that? According to Leary, we're all just budding self-guided panspermia rockets, and the more acid we do, the closer we'll all get to take-off. Well, alright sir, I'm skeptical but please don't stop.

If nothing else this is a man who left his stamp, so by all means, let us share his ideas. We have to contextualize them appropriately, of course, but come on, even if you think this guy was half-raving, the half that wasn't was charming and clever--and the half that was is fun as hell to talk about too. So, yeah, really hope in the long run things end with a compromise version everyone can live with: a summary of his ideas that does not pretend they are anything that anyone in a lecture hall would teach as fact, if they wanted to be taken seriously in their department, but a version which also discusses his ideas in detail. While staying as encyclopedic in tone as possible, this article should start essentially with "Ok, so get this, according to Timothy Leary, after he dropped an elephant's weight of acid for a decade and then they literally dropped him in a hole..." and then tell us anything and everything up to and including what drug and quantum particle-perceiving brain circuit combination he says lets us astral project. You see what I mean? I didn't have to make a word of that up! Bless Timothy Leary, the brave psychedelic astronaut, and every dose of LSD that propelled him to the peripheries of the universe and back to share his story with us. What killyjoy would ever have wanted him to be anyone but who he was? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

...Oh, wait--Nixon. That last question was meant to be completely rhetorical, but I just realized it has an actual answer and it's Richard Nixon. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The original complaint about the article was that there was a lack the independent sources required to create a fringe compliant article. Thanks to good research from Viriditas and others this has been resolved. Don't know why this turned into such a big fight and ended up here, but i think the only way to get good content now is to give up the fight and start thinking about how best to serve the reader. There is a way to do that and still comply with WP:FRINGE, but everything going on now seems pretty counter-productive, except for Snow Rise trying to get everyone back on track. fiveby(zero) 16:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... a lack [of] the independent sources required to create a fringe compliant article."

WP:FRINGE makes clear that applies only to fringe content inside a mainstream-topic article:
"Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects."

Note that "creation science" is not actually science at all, but a rephrase of Biblical literalism. Randy and I have both pointed out that Leary's model isn't science either, not even the "fringe" kind. – .Raven  .talk 19:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop this tendentious trolling. This is a blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of what FRINGE covers (not to mention the policy requiring independent sources in all articles). I and others have directly and in multiple places provided quotes to you from FRINGE stating the requirement for independent sources to create a fringe-compliant article. Here's a handy guide which I suggest you bookmark the permalink to so we don't have to go over this again:

For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality.

The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.

The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Also "independent sources", yes; but "views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on [a fring topic] solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review." — only "from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects."

Add or demand more sources, by all means, but please stop deleting the refs that were already placed. – .Raven  .talk 03:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven and JoelleJay: First off, you both need to stop endlessly relitigating the same content issues here--or any content issues for that matter. You are both doing more than enough to do that on the talk page about these exact same issues, but this is not the place for that discussion. It's sometimes necessary to tangentially touch upon the content issues to jduge disruption here, but this is clearly not that: you guys have spent kb debating the particulars of policy above (as did others, more than necessary, but you two are the ones still at it).

Please reserve this space for behavioural matters: even reviving this thread frivolously when it hadn't been posted to in weeks and no one was any longer examining Randy's conduct or proposing action, and the thread was about to be archived, was frankly more than a little disruptive. What we certainly don't need here at this point is more unnecessary noise. For that matter, I'd really recommend you two disengage on these same issues on the talk page, at least for now. Both your positions are well-staked out now, here and there, in your fifty or so rounds. We know your opinions on these issues.

If I am blunt, you two are at two extremes, each possibly untenable, of this argument: that's not a problem in and of itself--someone will always be at the poles--but it's no wonder neither of you is moving the other, so, please mutually Drop the WP:FRINGE stick the two of you have either end of; Rule of thumb, if there are 10-15 people on a TP, and you just replied back to the same person on the same issue in an unbroken back-and-forth exchange of 20 posts, you've lost the plot. You aren't convincing the other person and you're probably trying the patience of the people who agree with you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

And on that last point, Raven, my friend, just more generally, as you have already been told above, you have got to take this down like about a thousand notches. This constant, unceasing bludgeoning of the discussion from every possible angle has got to stop. The replying ceaselessly to everyone, the invariably combative tone, this implication of "I can't believe you just said that!?" which comes accross on every response to an opinion you disagree with. It's too much. Viriditas tried to tell you about this in their usual diplomatic, unfaltering magnanimous way: "I feel like I've had six cups of coffee after reading a Raven reply, and that's saying something." I appreciate restraint and diplomacy (and nowhere more than on this project), but I'm going to speak more bluntly at this point: despite our being on the same side on the core content issue, and many of the more particular details as well, I'm not far from recommending a page ban myself--and because of how you continue to engage there, I don't have much doubt it's going to have strong support.

Understand, in more than a decade and a half on this project, I have never proposed a sanction for another editor--at least certainly not for a discussion in which I had become involved--so believe me when I say I'd rather not now. But it's increasingly feeling like it might be necessary to get discussion there back on track and resolve this matter one way or another. This getting in everyone's face and taking everything so personally doesn't win anyone over, or help us reach consensus on practical solutions. Even when people are overwhelmingly agreeing with your positions, if they don't cross the 't' and dot the 'i' to your exact preference, you feel the need to correct them. Your response to fiveby above is a perfect example of this.

Please try to WP:HEAR what others are telling you about how your responses come off in this situation. Like Viriditas, I value your perspective and don't want to lose it, but the problems with your conduct in this matter have now well eclipsed anything anyone was originally concerned with regarding Randy, in my estimation, and there are limits to what we can ask others in that space to deal with, in order to preserve said perspective. Your repeated Charlie Brown and Lucy metaphors not withstanding, your opinions have actually been more than politely received, even when our position was strongly contravened by consensus and the matter could have easily just been run to AfD, where the other side's numbers would have been a probably decisive advantage. Please try to return that courtesy by taking your foot off the gas just a bit--the fumes are flooding the room and it doesn't help anyone to see your point. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

? I had made four (really three) posts here since Raven revived the thread, and only after you pinged me to add my thoughts on his behavior. I wasn't planning on adding anything after my one post about his misrepresenting FRINGE... And I don't appreciate my position being characterized as some polar extreme when it's literally the consensus interpretation of FRINGE/NPOV used in the dozens of other FRINGE discussions I've participated in. JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak to what perspective you may have garnered from past discussions, but personally I disagree: while I substantially agree with the core of your concerns, I think your take goes beyond the restraints urged in that policy, and in at least some respects is inconsistent with community consensus on when to have articles on fringe topics, as well as local consensus as to whether the sourcing sustains an article and whether primary sources can be used to supply some of the content for that article, provided it is appropriately attributed and contextualized. But that's all neither here nor there: that's 100% a matter of reasonable, goodfaith editorial disagreement between you and I (and others there) and you're welcome to your opinion on the matter, as far as I am concerned. In fact, I welcome the significant range of perspectives: it's all part of the value we extract from the wisdom of the crowd approach on Wikipedia, as far as I view such situations.

The problem is that content discussions don't belong here. Yes, you've only replied a handful of times since the thread was revived, but you and Raven (and to be fair, some others) have previously been back and forth on these issues repeatedly, to the tune of dozens of posts in this thread, and my point is that we don't need it starting again. If you have something to say about a community member's conduct here, that's one thing. Otherwise the content dispute between you two should remain sequestered to the talk page. I'm sorry, but if I'm going to ask Raven to slow their roll, I have to be fair and address the part about extended content discussions not belonging at ANI to both of you, or else they will (perhaps reasonably, this time) argue that they are being unfairly singled out here, which is something they seem to feel anyway. Nothing personal: I'm just trying to be consistent and even-handed about the whole thing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I second Snow Rise. This essentially was, from the very start, just a content dispute. This report was very frivolous and misleading, and should have been closed in minutes, trouting/boomeranging the opener. All current discussion belongs to the article(s) talk page(s). Close it please. Cavarrone 07:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion (Randy Kryn - WP:IDHT on edit warring and fringe topics)

> "Witchcraft... " – where Kryn reverted the addition of "usually to cause harm" from "Short description|Practice of magic". For some reason I recall what Janet Farrar wrote in an open letter after she and Stewart Farrar had been resettled in rural Ireland for a while: don't worry about persecution, you'll be welcome as a healer and herbalist since doctors are distant and dear [expensive]... but you'd better know where the hemorrhoid-wort grows!

> "Cliffs at Étretat (Moscow)... Here an editor adds a tag noting that only one source is used in the entire article.... Here Kryn removes that tag...." – You omit what Kryn [correctly spelled] notes there: "removed onesource tag (visual arts pages reach notability on one museum source, and this is already covered by the refimprove tag)"; IOW, the tag saying "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." remains. He removed what amounts to either duplication of message, or misplaced message if it referred to notability. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your input. I think the other editor was emphasizing that there was only one source for the whole page - which consisted of a number of images not applicable to that one source at that time. So, I think it is important to note that the page was lacking sources at that time. Basically, it was Kryn's interpretation of the tags that "onesource" wasn't needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the pre-existing refimprove tag already addressed that need, yes. – .Raven  ^.talk 05:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Raven:: I don't think the existing reimprove tag already addressed that need. I think in this instance it was important to emphasize that only single source existed. And I think the reimprove tag doesn't clarify that there is only a single source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The pre-existing refimprove tag literally said, verbatim: "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." If this doesn't address your "I think it is important to note that the page was lacking sources at that time", no number of tags could have done so. What the refimprove tag has over the onesource tag is that adding one more source, so now there are just two, won't make it obsolete and irrelevant. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Point taken. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a nuanced case and I'm inclined to agree it is weak tea to imply behavioural misconduct on. But purely for the sake of discussion, it is worth noting that whatever low bar the SNG may employ, said SNG only offers presumed notability/temporary obviation of the requirement to show significant coverage in reliable sources: every article must still establish compliance with WP:N/WP:GNG ultimately. And one short paragraph worth of discussion on the informal website catalogue for a museum is clearly not getting that job done, so just about any tag reflecting the shortfall of sourcing there would be appropriate, imo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, then, isn't it nice that there already was such a tag, which wasn't removed? – .Raven  ^.talk 05:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's not miss the forest for the trees here: I think Steve's point in raising attention regarding this tag-removal behaviour is that (no matter how you parse the necessity for / possible redundancy of the tag) the removal feels a little reactionary, and possibly part of a pattern of defensiveness of certain content on Randy's part. Now, the reason I don't view that argument as particularly compelling is that we see evidence on that very same article of Randy giving way and ending the revert cycle once particular policy language is invoked. So taken together, the activity there is not great evidence of a behavioural issue that the community needs to restrain. That said, tedious and repeated nitpicking over the applicability of tags can be a sign of a deeper issue. I just don't think the case has been made here that the overall package of behaviours is problematic to the point of needing a sanction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with much of your paragraph; I also agree with Randy on the redundancy of the 2nd tag. – .Raven  ^.talk 22:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This is long past the point where it's useful to anyone attempting to use this noticeboard, essentially. Please discuss the policy questions in an appropriate place such as WP:VPPOL. There might be something useful to the question of whether Randy Kryn deserves sanction in this collapse box, but I'd recommend that if you think there is, you make a short note of it below the box. Izno (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

> "Eight Circuits...." – I especially enjoyed Joelle Jay's remark: "'The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.' I think Wilson, Alli, et al fall squarely in the realm of 'adherents'." The same argument could be made against the Theory of Relativity, or Evolution, or Plate Tectonics, etc.: everyone who supports them is an "adherent" and therefore not verifiable or reliable. What a boon to FRINGE! > "Some Like It Hot..." - Pics were deleted without policy reason (WP:TRIVIAL addresses other issues, not how many relevant pics belong in an article); Kryn restored them. This is the [WP] Way. – .Raven  .talk 05:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I never cited WP:TRIVIAL. Neither did the editor in that diff. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC) You wrote, "Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [209]"  [underline added]; since WP:TRIVIAL doesn't apply, on what policy basis were the pics of that film deleted from the article about that film? – .Raven  .talk 06:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Raven's question answered here and here. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC) That section is closed, so I can't reply there. JoelleJay says: "Nyxaros reverts pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD". At the link cited (your "209" above), Nyxaros's edit comment was "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)." 1) I don't see IMGDD mentioned in that. 2) WP:IMGDD says things like "Place images in the section to which they are related" and "Don't add images that are not relevant." 3) I don't see how that mandates the removal of images that ARE "related to the film" as Nyxaros admits, thus ARE relevant to an article about it. – .Raven  .talk 17:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC) IMGD is mentioned here by Nyxaros. And that would be diff 203 in my original post about this (not 201). I think it would be best to ask @Nyxaros: about this (I just pinged them). However, I will take a stab at this. I think "related" means peripherally, incidentally, or tangentially related. This does not mean they are necessarily relevant pertaining to the topic. To me, there does seem to be a distinction. Also, WP:IMGDD discourages overuse of images in the article saying: "Don't use images or galleries excessively." Also, WP:GALLERY says "Wikipedia is not an image repository..." and that indiscriminate collections of images are discouraged. I paraphrased there - this "definition" also includes galleries. At minimum discussion should take place to weigh relevance by consensus, rather than impetuously adding images to the article. And it appears to me that Nyxaros was trying very hard to adhere to WP:PAG---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC) So, not the original diff we'd been discussing. It sure would have helped to state or link that earlier, when the claim about the edit-comment was made. (This is on JoelleJay, not you.) Over and over, Randy has tried to take issues to talkpages rather than to competing edits; is it just barely possible that if you folks had tried meeting him on that level and discussed what changes you wanted and why (in specific words, not just page-links which lead to multiple different statements of which most aren't relevant), you might have persuaded him rather than having such a conflict? Successful attorney Gerry Spence wrote a book, How to Argue and Win Every Time, which suggests getting your opponent to want to agree with you. It's a great book, and I recommend it. For everyone. – .Raven  .talk 22:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC) For reference, this is the diff sequence in question: -Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images [201] with the rationale: "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs) -Kryn reverts misrepsenting Nyxaros rationale in the edit history [202]. -Nyxaros reverts [203] pointing out that trivial images contravene WP:IMGDD, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." And here is the dispute: You inexplicably interpret Steve Quinn's use of the word "trivial" in diff 201 to be an (unlinked, uncapitalized) invocation of the AfD essay WP:TRIVIAL, which it seems you believe is a policy You dismiss his argument on the basis that WP:TRIVIAL "addresses other issues" When Steve Quinn says he never cited WP:TRIVIAL, you quote diff 201 to imply he is lying When others explain to you that "trivial" is an English word and not just a wikipedia shortcut, you demand Then where's the policy mandating the "edit [ing] out [of]  trivial images"? I quote diff 203 two items down from diff 201, which helpfully not only provides the info page WP:IMGDD where relevant policy is linked, but also demonstrates that Nyxaros had referenced this page in their edit summary Quoting two diffs from the same small subsection regarding the same edit series is apparently just too complex to follow along JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Inexplicably you misstate your case: "3. When Steve Quinn says he never cited WP:TRIVIAL, you quote diff 201 to imply he is lying" – No, I quoted Steve himself, not (then) his diff of that edit by User:Nyxaros. Only later did I quote that diff's edit-comment, after *you*, JoelleJay, said Nyxaros had cited WP:IMGDD... which was nowhere in that diff's edit. Then Steve said you were referring to a different diff, and I commented that it would have been nice if you'd so indicated at the time. > "Quoting two diffs from the same small subsection regarding the same edit series is apparently just too complex to follow along" – Try, paraphrasing a different diff than the one being discussed, and not indicating the fact (as by attaching the link), makes it seem like a misquote or misattribution. The same would happen if the references were two different sections of the same article, two different areas of the same book, two different books by the same author, etc. Failing to indicate a change of context or referent is a failure of the writer, not the reader; and mocking the reader for not reading your mind to realize your change (or know to which diff/section/area/book you'd changed focus) is an attempt at burden-shifting, with insults on top of it. Neither civil nor honest. How disappointing. – .Raven  .talk 04:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC) If you cannot recognize from context that "diff 201" etc. should be read as the item in the list quoted above with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 201 etc., then you lack the competence and collaborative capacity to participate here. I did not say that Nyxaros had cited IMGDD, nor did I paraphrase anything; I quoted the item in the list with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 203. Your statement Then where's the policy mandating the "edit [ing] out [of]  trivial images"? does not restrict citation of this "policy" to diff 201 itself, to discussion of diff 201, or to any of the diffs and discussions by Steve Quinn at all; I could have eliminated the green quoted text and my answer would have been just as appropriate (as further evidenced by @Redrose64's comment). My inclusion of the quote was a nod at how utterly ridiculous your question was considering the text *you* quoted was just two items above the answer to your question. Stop wasting people's time with captious, misguided, and irrelevant sniping. JoelleJay (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC) "diff 201" is not mentioned at WP:AN#Request an Admin, which was where Steve had sent me with his above comment "Raven's question answered here and here." I came back from there, mentioned the absence of the purported edit-comment from the diff that Steve had cited after "trivial images". Steve then pointed to a different diff. To that I replied, "So, not the original diff we'd been discussing. It sure would have helped to state or link that earlier, when the claim about the edit-comment was made. (This is on JoelleJay, not you.)" AFTER that was cleared up, you began suggesting I should have known it beforehand, retroactively as it were, and NOW you say, "If you cannot recognize from context that "diff 201" etc. should be read as the item in the list quoted above with Steve Quinn's commentary on and link to diff 201 etc., then you lack the competence and collaborative capacity to participate here." As for "context" – the exchanges between Steve and me had the context of the diff I quoted Steve citing. The paraphrase of Nyxaros you posted on WP:AN neither attributed it to Steve's earlier text on this page nor included that cite/diff. Once again: when a writer fails to include enough information for readers to identify their source, that is the writer's failing, not the readers' for not mind-reading. Your continued attempt at burden-shifting is now also "WP:ICANTHEARYOU". – .Raven  .talk 01:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Your question was this: You wrote, "Here User:Nyxaros edits out trivial images" [underline added]; since WP:TRIVIAL doesn't apply, on what policy basis were the pics of that film deleted from the article about that film? The quotation you provided is wholly irrelevant to answering the question you asked as the P&G basis is self-evident in the edit summary accompanying that quote. Everyone else understands that P&G-based edits can be made without explicitly citing the P&G shortcut in an edit summary, because long-term editors are expected to be competent enough to recognize P&G rationales without ALLCAPS links. If an editor does not recognize paraphrased P&G and requests the justification for an edit, it is assumed they want a link to the relevant page, not for another editor to point out precisely which word in an edit summary is intended to be a shortcut to that page. So your expectation that all subsequent discussion would be directly tied to that specific diff is nonsensical. It is no one's fault but your own that you decided use of the word "trivial" must mean the author is citing WP:TRIVIAL; and then when disabused of this apparently made the illogical leap to believing that a) some other word in that particular diff/commentary must be covertly citing a policy shortcut, and b) everyone would read your mind and realize you were expecting the policy justification to be from that diff. That you also somehow failed to notice that an edit summary containing an ALLCAPS reference to P&G rationale, concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201, actually was provided just two items below diff201 (which again, you quoted, so forgive us for assuming you also read the two sentences directly after it), is utterly beyond explanation. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC) > "an edit summary ... concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201" – Was not, however, itself the 'exact same' edit summary as in diff201. Your argument presumes that if diff_A and diff_B both "concern" content_X, then anyone who has seen diff_A has also seen diff_B... perhaps through some same-'concern' auto-linking feature? This is clearly, obviously, blatantly not the case. So clearly, obviously, etc., that it takes a great deal of disingenuity to make (then keep making) that argument. By the way, you seem not to have noticed that as old ANI sections with link numbers are archived, the remaining sections have their link numbers lowered; the Nyxaros diff links posted by Steve are now in the low 100s. – .Raven  .talk 08:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC) "an edit summary ... concerning the exact same content∆ as in diff201" – Was not, however, itself the 'exact same' edit summary as in diff201.Your argument presumes that if diff_A and diff_B both "concern" content_X, then anyone who has seen diff_A has also seen diff_B... Again, being in any edit summary anywhere was not a prerequisite for answering the question of what the policy basis is for removing trivial images, which is what you asked. Why would it even matter whether Nyxaros explicitly provided a policy shortcut when they summarized the relevant P&Gs? And even though an edit summary diff was irrelevant, of course I expected you to recognize I was quoting the statement two sentences down from the one you quoted, because it was part of a very brief, tightly-linked temporal sequence that Steve Quinn included in his summary of Randy Kryn's other conflicts--a summary you clearly had read based on your address[ing] each of the four specific claims [SQ] made about "tendentious editing" by Randy Kryn. Do you need me to link to that diff too or can you figure it out from here? JoelleJay (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC) > "Why would it even matter whether Nyxaros explicitly provided a policy shortcut when they summarized the relevant P&Gs?" – In the diff under discussion at that time, Nyxaros's edit comment was "Both images do not contribute anything to the article. Just because they are related to the film doesn't mean they should be used (randomly, between paragraphs)"... which could easily be the phrasing of an ad hoc argument, as it neither cites policy nor indicates that it is "summarizing" policy. Indeed, you have mocked the idea that the word "trivial" might be in reference to WP:TRIVIAL, but now you're turning 180° by arguing that anyone could or should know this phrasing referred to a policy. Nice rhetorical footwork. – .Raven  .talk 02:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC) "Where in the specific wording of this specific diff commentary is the editor invoking a policy justification" was not your question. Your question didn't even require that the author had intentionally referenced policy in any diff; just the existence of a policy basis for the referenced action would suffice regardless of the reason for doing it. I mocked the idea that the word "trivial" might be in reference to WP:TRIVIAL because no one would be so clueless as to use an utterly unrelated AfD essay section as a rationale for removing an image, so why would you even think that was an option. Or do you just assume all words in an argument are secret shortcuts? JoelleJay (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC) > "to use an utterly unrelated AfD essay section as a rationale"  [emphasis in original] – Congratulations, you have just restated what I (more gently) said three days earlier, "deleted without policy reason (WP:TRIVIAL addresses other issues, not how many relevant pics belong in an article)". – .Raven  .talk 06:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC) You thought there was more than a 0% chance that the word "trivial" in that exchange referred to WP:TRIVIAL, while at the same time ignoring the rest of the diff/comment actually documenting the rationale AND the followup diff/comments that literally do cite the shortcut for that rationale. JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC) No point my answering someone who keeps playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. – .Raven  .talk 22:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Raven, first I am posting this link to the discussion page on "Some Like It Hot" [65]. This was in my original post. So I have to agree that discussion might have been better. But my experience of discussion with him on the "Eight circuits" talk page seemed to indicate he was not willing to move off his position, or compromise, no matter what. See the "Discussion" section on that page [66]. I'll have to go back and see if we had linked to too many guidelines and policies in that discussion - which I have recently noticed Randy does not relate to (after I posted this). I think it is important to be accommodating if that is possible. Also, a caveat. The discussion does not start out in a good way during mine and Randy's initial interaction. We have since mended fences about that interaction. So after this, a more elaborate discussion takes place. Notice there is a 10 hour passage of time between the initial discussion and Shibbolethink's comment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC) One more thing, it seems difficult for editors to be "heard" in their interactions with Randy. So, this does wear down editors. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC) You might have tried bringing THAT issue (too) directly to Randy before bringing it to 3rd parties. Tell me, if someone has a gripe about you, would you rather they tell you about it first, last, or somewhere in the middle? This certainly isn't an RfC, but WP:RFCBEFORE has good advice. – .Raven  .talk 04:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Raven Yes. Good point. I would rather someone tell me about it first. In light of this and other considerations I have withdrawn my proposed sanction. Also, I appreciate the conversations we have had. However, I think, for the most part, I will bow out of this section. Hopefully that is OK with you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Sure. I'm glad this was an educational experience! :) – .Raven  .talk 01:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Well, it is interesting how it didn't get past you that, for me, "this was an educational experience" without me saying that. Kudos! ---01:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) The same argument would have been made for all of those topics during whichever periods of time they were controversial minority views. They are currently mainstream and so we do not treat them as FRINGE topics. If you do not understand the definition of FRINGE used on wikipedia you can start a thread at the Tea House or FTN, but re-explaining it to you here is not productive. JoelleJay (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC) > "The same argument would have been made for all of those topics during whichever periods of time they were controversial minority views." – IOW, following your preferred process those would have been declared FRINGE theories — although they were more correct than "majority" views, as showed by further research (and "paradigm changes" as the older generation faded away while younger, more flexible minds took over). Right? – .Raven  .talk 08:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC) .....yes, if we were writing WP articles at the time those theories were considered by reliable mainstream academic sources to be fringe (or more correctly alternative formulations with minority support), they would be treated as FRINGE/given appropriate weight and context. As is prescribed by WP:FRINGE/ALT. The ECM has at no point been supported by mainstream scholarship in the areas it purports to contribute, and in fact has been entirely ignored by it, so coupled with it clearly not being an alternative theoretical formulation it must be treated on WP as the pseudoscience it is. JoelleJay (talk) 09:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC) The point here is that nobody is asking for this article to be given any prominence whatsoever at the article on Consciousness. It is simply being suggested that enough coverage exists for an article to exist outlining the theory. These are quite different arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Agreed. Thankfully, it looks as if discussion on the talk pages is starting to turn towards an approach which accounts for that distinction. SnowRise let's rap 18:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Fringe topics are not notable if they cannot be contextualized by mainstream sources, so the suggestion that "enough coverage exists" for notability is false. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry Joelle, but even as someone new to this discussion by way of this ANI filing, and who has thus only had a couple of days to look into the sources, I can see that this is plainly not true. There are at least dozens and potentially hundreds of WP:RS which establish the WP:Notability of this topic. Not all of them discuss the topic in depth, and fewer still come from the field of academics which this psuedoscience apes, but contrary to what you've implied above a few times, nothing in WP:NFRINGE (or the the related WP:FRINGELEVEL) requires that they be. The closest anything in the policy gets to that assertion is "While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research". And aside from that, there are some academic treatments of this work, as google scholar reveals. I'm not saying that care will not be needed to keep the content tonally appropriate to prevent the article from presenting Leary/Wilson's ideas as legitimate consensus science--extreme care will be needed to that end. But there are far too many sources to credibly argue that this topic is not notable or can't be appropriate contextualized for the reader, imo. A significant reduction and restructuring of the content will be necesary, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not advisable here. SnowRise let's rap 23:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Additionally, in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. If we do not have independent non-FRINGE RS describing how ECM fits in with the mainstream, the article cannot possibly meet the requirements at FRINGE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry, but the conclusion that you reach at the end there is just clearly not found in the policy itself, and is pretty massively inconsistent with the vast number of articles we have on psuedoscientific topics that can't be "described in terms of how they fit in the mainstream", because they have no proper role in mainstream science (and yet are still notable topics that it serves our readers to have articles about). If your rule were actually found in WP:FRINGE (and it isn't), then we would have thousands less articles on various types of snake oil, conspiracy theories, and psuedoscience. Again, FRINGE is express about what is and is not required: coverage in scientific literature is not mandatory, even for science-adjacent woo, but rather we are constrained in how we can describe such topics in Wikivoice. But the absence of such sources does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that we therefore jetison the entire article as impossible to write. That's just not how notability/inclusion criteria work on this project, even for controversial or fringe topics. Meanwhile, as to all the portions of the policy that you selectively quoted, pulling them out of their full context, there's still not a single one of them with policy considerations that cannot be met with the substantial number of sources available in this instance. And with the exception of the sources Randy was advocating for (which we've now collectively pushed back against as the primary basis for the article), all of the sourcing is WP:INDEPENDENT. SnowRise let's rap 01:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC) How do you propose we neutrally cover a (hypothetical) FRINGE concept that is only discussed by FRINGE sources? We absolutely should jettison an article if it cannot be contextualized with the mainstream, I don't know how it could be any clearer from The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative. Note that I am not saying this absolutely is the case for ECM, I said if it is then the article should not be retained (and that the sourcing before @TrangaBellam's edits was severely inadequate). If you have found mainstream RS that discuss ECM in-depth and describe its level of acceptance within the relevant mainstream fields, then go ahead and post the links. What I got out of google scholar were some articles (in fields related to ECM only to the extent that the margins of any field can engage with any vague unempirical system of mystical precepts) providing uncritical coverage of the idea (like one in media ecology that seems to operate entirely within Leary's cosmology), and a good number of unreliable occult books from people who subscribe to such things. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC) I also checked out Google scholar and came up with the same results as JoelleJay. There doesn't seem to be anything useful there.Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC) > "What I got out of google scholar were some articles (...) providing uncritical coverage of the idea (like one in media ecology that seems to operate entirely within Leary's cosmology), and a good number of ... books from people who subscribe to such things." – Absent pejoratives, this seems to say "Yeah, GS had sources supporting Leary, but therefore I reject them." – .Raven  .talk 03:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Indeed! Because that is what FRINGE tells us to do: notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. emph mine JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC) By that logic, Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and the Heliocentric Model could never have become NON-Fringe, because "the proclamation of their adherents" would always have been dismissed out of hand, and they would have continued to be judged only by their doubters' statements. – .Raven  .talk 00:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC) So you still haven't actually read FRINGE, in particular the section distinguishing it from alternative formulations. Or maybe you just don't understand how scientific consensus works. JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC) If every person/publication that "supported" or "adhered to" those theories had been disregarded under your proposed rule, that means they would not have been regarded as forming a consensus. That appears to be how you think scientific consensus should work. – .Raven  .talk 01:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC) That's not a "proposed rule"; if you haven't caught on yet (and this would actually explain a lot), the green text indicates a direct quote. Anyway, you still haven't read fringe/alt, and you're seemingly unaware that scientific consensus changes based on mainstream publications demonstrating empirical evidence. A "fringe adherent" is defined based on how little their fringe idea receives critical support from within the larger academic field. If the fringe idea eventually receives empirical validation, there will be far more "adherents", resulting in the fringe idea being considered not fringe and consequently the "adherents" will just be "mainstream". JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC) You'd said Relativity, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, the Heliocentric Model, would properly have been ruled "fringe" back when they had "minority support". The rule you're proposing is that a theory/model can be ruled "fringe" (and all its supporters and adherents likewise dismissed) before it has actually been debunked (which likewise requires reliable sources discussing it, and presenting factual disproof/s). That's how the Church treated the Heliocentric Model, hence Bruno's and Galileo's trials... but that's not how science works. Where are your RS citations of factual disproof? Waving your hands doesn't count. – .Raven  .talk 08:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Read what I wrote again (emph added): if we were writing WP articles at the time those theories were considered by reliable mainstream academic sources to be fringe (or more correctly alternative formulations with minority support), they would be treated as FRINGE/given appropriate weight and context. As is prescribed by WP:FRINGE/ALT. The ECM has at no point been supported by mainstream scholarship in the areas it purports to contribute, and in fact has been entirely ignored by it, so coupled with it clearly not being an alternative theoretical formulation it must be treated on WP as the pseudoscience it is. But the statement holds true regardless that Wikipedia reflects what the mainstream consensus is, and if the mainstream regards a hypothesis as fringe, or the hypothesis is so obviously in conflict with basic natural laws that no one in the mainstream even bothers to acknowledge it, we faithfully represent that consensus by noting the hypothesis is fringe or just not covering it at all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC) > "... if the mainstream regards a hypothesis as fringe, or the hypothesis is so obviously in conflict with basic natural laws...." – Again, where in that article are RSs cited for either conditional? – .Raven  .talk 03:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC) FRINGE-compliant RS weren't cited at all. That's why it was blanked. And if you're really going to argue ECM is not self-evidently wacko garbage then this discussion is over. JoelleJay (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Your problem in the first place is declaring the topic "fringe" without it having been debunked (factually disproved) as had, e.g., Phlogiston theory (but not Relativity, despite many thinking it wacko garbage*). To say "self-evidently" is hand-waving, even WP:OR since you cite no RSs. Where's the disproof? – .Raven  .talk 06:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Hypotheses that rely on a natural law not existing are clearly FRINGE even if they aren't debunked. Proposals that, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (e.g. Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. JoelleJay (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC) 1) What "natural law" does the eight-circuit model of consciousness violate? 2) So labeling and categorizing Relativity as Grundsinnlosigkeit, without justification by experimental disproof, was the right move, eh? 3) You think "the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible"? Have you never heard of Newton's First Law of Motion? Escape velocity? Cosmic inflation? Eternal inflation? Ohhhh, you conflate such motion with a machine that tries to exploit such motion... and thereby slows it down. 4) And you think you understand science. – .Raven  .talk 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC) ... the text by W. Rauschenberger (Frankfurt), titled “Anti-Einstein,” clearly deserves the label “most cynical.” ... He uses the German term Grundsinnlosigkeit (i.e., complete absence of basic sense).... He surmises that “logic and reason are apparently too simplistic and boring to satisfy people”.... – Arguments remarkably similar to those made here. – .Raven  .talk 07:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Should we also blank or delete Phlogiston theory and Ptolemaic astronomy? Astrology? Alchemy? – .Raven  .talk 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Please stop playing (?) dumb. If you can't understand the difference between discussing a fringe idea in the context of mainstream and discussing a fringe idea without that context, you shouldn't be contributing to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC) > "discussing a fringe idea in the context of mainstream" – But this is not what was done to the article. See above: lol, Here's what the 8-circuit page looked like couple of days ago. Here's what it looks like now. Admins, can I revert yet? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC) This is really just stealth deletion, isn't it? Quite concerning. Boynamedsue (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — and — The point here is that nobody is asking for this article to be given any prominence whatsoever at the article on Consciousness. It is simply being suggested that enough coverage exists for an article to exist outlining the theory. These are quite different arguments. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC) If a bit more attention had been paid to getting straight what the opponent's argument actually is, this wouldn't look so much like a collection of Straw Man fallacies. – .Raven  .talk 22:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC) The main person in need of the advice in your last sentence, is you. Also re: "opponents", please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. --JBL (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC) > "The main person in need of the advice in your last sentence, is you." – IOW, "tu quoque" ? Sure, I'll take that advice. Which doesn't in any way negate my point above. Let neutral readers decide. > "Also re: 'opponents'" – see the definition of that word: 'One who opposes another; one who works or takes a position against someone or something; one who attempts to stop the progress of someone or something.' If being or having opponents were forbidden on Wikipedia, no-one would be allowed to comment "Oppose" (or its opposite, "Support") on RfCs or other discussions. The policy WP:BATTLEGROUND itself refers to "those with whom you have a disagreement" and "if they hold a point of view with which you disagree" — but then advises how to behave toward them. That by no means denies the occurrence of opposition here, it just guides conduct in that situation. – .Raven  .talk 03:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Not playing then, I guess. Please find something better to do with your time. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC) You're right, I'm definitely not joining in the game. – .Raven  .talk 00:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• In retrospect, I think the Proposed Sanction process was derailed by the gargantuan wall of the off-topic text, which is now hatted by this box. I did participate, but I should not have allowed the derailing of the process to happen in the first place. I take responsibility for participating and allowing it to happen. My original proposed sanction should either be modified to a formal community warning or dropped. If I decide to propose a sanction I will post here, hopefully within the next 24 hours. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• I did further reading of the text that remains outside the hatted portion of this ANI. It appears that there is no consensus pertaining to whether the issues merit an ANI. Also, there is no consensus for proposed sanctions. In light of this, I am dropping the idea that any proposed sanction is appropriate. Also, I note that Softlavender has posted sound guidance below for how to proceed. If there are no objections, I request that this ANI thread be closed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Proposal: Could everyone go back to following standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as BRD, dispute resolution, and avoidance of edit wars? And if problems arise the correct next steps are either WP:RFC or usertalk-warning and then reporting at WP:ANEW if EW persists. Note that even a slo-mo edit war can be reported to ANEW.

  Wikipedia is really very simple when those steps are followed. And what prevents all of this ANI reporting are article-talk discussions based on sources and wiki policies, and if stalemates are reached there then RFC.

  I say all of this because what we actually seem to have in this entire thread are a series of content disputes in which a number of people (not just the named editor) are failing to do these very simple steps. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Support, per obvious. – .Raven  .talk 01:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Propose one month 1 RR for Randy Kryn

Please ivote "support' or "oppose". Also please see discussion section below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• I withdraw my proposed sanction. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• oppose The main problem here is the fact this even being discussed at ANI. I think that this a case of wikilawfare in a content dispute. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Content disputes, and Kryn seems to be following policy better than his accusers. – .Raven  ^.talk 08:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this seems too heavy-handed for what appears to be a content dispute. Also, it's 'Kryn', not 'Kyrn'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I think this works, as it's a fixed time frame and addresses the issue of editor behavior, which seems to have persisted since at least the last time Kryn was brought to ANI. I don't think it's overly harsh either, most editors voluntarily end up abiding by a de facto 1RR almost all of the time anyway. - car chasm (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral, torn between realizing that this editor doesn't think his edits stink while at the same time am kind of surprised that every one of the edits being pointed out are actually pretty good and have built the encyclopedia in a pretty good direction. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. There are definitely issues here, largely with regard to Randy refusing the drop the stick, which have the potential to become truly disruptive. But in the current cluster of content disputes over Leary, the mishandling of the situation cannot be put at Randy's feet alone: the edit warring in particular has not been unidirectional by any stretch of the imagination, nor has he been the only party stretching the reading of policy or indulging in an overly-simplified analysis of the sources. As far as I can tell, the entire set of disputes has been characterized by some gung-ho attitudes all around. Randy happens to be mostly alone on one side of the content end of those disputes, but the 'other side' hasn't respected WP:EW any better than he, and to the extent there are any issues with WP:LISTEN, they too are shared by both sides. I don't want to downplay Randy's behaviour here, either: while I don't think it's sanctionable, there are elements of his editorial approach to these facts that give me concern. But nothing here justifies the proposed sanction, when you consider all context and the actions of other contributors. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ayya Vaikundar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the years, User:Vaikunda Raja has displayed WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. The edits of various editors have been reverted to "his" version of the article [67], User:Dl2000 [68][69], User:Chronikhiles [70][71], User:DaxServer [72] [73]. Request a solution to the same. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

According to the article's talk page, it looks like Vaikunda Raja (VR) has shepherded this article for nearly 20 years. On the talk page, Redtigerxyz tried to explain how an encyclopedia article should approach the subject per WP:NPOV#Religion (Jun 2022); Chronikhiles pointed out (Jul 2022): This article is riddled with theological statements that are presented as though they are facts. It looks like serious attempts to fix the POV of the article started most recently in July 2022, and VR has reverted every WP:NPOV rewrite by multiple editors. VR repeatedly points out that there is an article about the historical person (Historical Vaikundar) but that this article is about the "spiritual figure" and claims Academics confuses the historical as well as the spiritual perspective over Vaikundar often.

I think the mental framework that VR is using of historical/spiritual prevents them from understanding how to apply WP:NPOV to the "spiritual figure" article. VR seems to think that an article about a mythology should be wiki-voiced as if the mythology were fact. I'm not convinced that VR can approach this topic as an objective editor rather than as an adherent, and it might be more constructive if VR was limited to using its talk page to propose edits. Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, a more appropriate venue for this sort of issue. It will save you the time and drama of a discussion here. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A. B., I believe that the issue here is not the contributions, the contributor. Thus, Dispute resolution noticeboard is not the right forum IMHO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"I believe that the issue here is not the contributions, the contributor."

If the contributor is the issue not for his contributions, then your issue with the contributor is personal?! - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

By accusing of myself claiming WP:OWNERSHIP, the initiator of this section here had tactically or unconsciously diverted the core issue.

To understand the issue:

Ayya Vaikundar is a mythical figure and so the article Ayya Vaikundar is primarily based on the source of Ayyavazhi Mythology, the Akilathirattu Ammanai as if the Krishna article is primarily based on Mahabharata, Bagavat Gita and Bagavata Purana. That does not mean that Krishna article is (and should be) solely based on Mahabharata alone. Even though various accounts, interpretations, validations are included in the article, the main narrative of the life, events, character and teachings of Krishna is based on Mahabharata and Bagavat Gita. There are historical perspective for Krishna as well. Those are cut-shorted to one section alone; and even in that section, historical sources is intermingled with literary sources and so the factual validity or historicity is mixed up with beliefs and mythys. Not even a single statement is found in the lead section which explains the historical validity of Krishna. All sources points back directly or indirectly to some religious/literary sources.

Phaethon is the son of Sun God Helios. And this is as per Greek mythology. The article begins with saying that "Phaethon is the son of Helios in Greek Mythology". And the whole article is written in that context.

These are not odd cases. Almost all articles on religious figures/god-heads is been presented in a similar way. Likewise Ayya Vaikundar article begins with a forthright statement that this is a mythology article. This is the point I was making repetedly, and I wonder that the level of ignorance in people who couldn't figure out this simple things are unbelievable!

Apart from that, the historical validity of Vaikundar is more than that of Krishna, Phaethon etc for many reasons. The most important among them are that his period is so recent and the impact of Vaikundar (as understood by academics and historians) are immense and vivid; it be social, religious or cultural; so much so that several social reform/renaissance movements across south India had their roots in Vaikundar's activities.

So numerous academic/ historical sources in the past 100 years or so had done research and published hundreds of articles/ books/thesis etc. Those sources, (since most of them are under the disciplines, History/Society/Humanity and very few under spirituality/philosophy) portrayed Vaikundar from the historical perspective alone which runs directly contradicting the religious and literary sources on which the religious beliefs/views of millions of People are based upon. Another important thing is that, the Akilamic narrative is that they are two different personalities. 1. Mudisoodum Perumal (1809-1833) and Vaikundar (1833-1851).

So considering these things, the Historical Vaikundar article is based on Historical perspective and it is mentioned forthright on top of the article. On the other hand the Vaikundar Article is based on mythology/beliefs and that again is mentioned forthright on the leading sentence of the article Ayya Vaikundar. I don't understand what is the confusion here.

And regarding the baseless accusations:

1. "Over the years, User:Vaikunda Raja has displayed WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. The edits of various editors have been reverted to "his" version of the article"

I can't understand the logic that reverting undiscussed reverts amounts to claim of ownership! Especially when it is quiet convincing that, two or more users working well aligned with an agenda, completely diminishing the value of arguments and misleading as if they are working with consensus!!

see this edit for example which is mentioned above. Here my revert was called as Vandalism!

2. " According to the article's talk page, it looks like Vaikunda Raja (VR) has shepherded this article for nearly 20 years. On the talk page, Redtigerxyz tried to explain how an encyclopedia article should approach the subject per WP:NPOV#Religion (Jun 2022); Chronikhiles pointed out (Jul 2022): This article is riddled with theological statements that are presented as though they are facts. It looks like serious attempts to fix the POV of the article started most recently in July 2022, and VR has reverted every WP:NPOV rewrite by multiple editors. VR repeatedly points out that there is an article about the historical person (Historical Vaikundar) but that this article is about the "spiritual figure" and claims Academics confuses the historical as well as the spiritual perspective over Vaikundar often.

I think the mental framework that VR is using of historical/spiritual prevents them from understanding how to apply WP:NPOV to the "spiritual figure" article."

The context shall only be understood by following the conversation here. It was distorted and narrated in a completely different way by User:Schazjmd, which I suspect was with a clear motive.

3. "VR seems to think that an article about a mythology should be wiki-voiced as if the mythology were fact."

Mythology is mythology and fact is fact. Nobody is claiming anything which is mythological as factual unless it is factually validated. Otherwise, validate the factual accuracy of each events in hundreds of mythology articles in Wikipedia before expecting it in Vaikundar article alone. Please explain your point with reference to your context for the articles Phaethon and Krishna.

4. "I'm not convinced that VR can approach this topic as an objective editor rather than as an adherent,"

It amuses me; the validation instinct of User:Schazjmd and his/her authority on scrutinizing the objectivity or rationality of other users!

5. "and it might be more constructive if VR was limited to using its talk page to propose edits."

Best luck and I would be more happy to see it... - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

ABOVE ALL... I accept that the article is in a poor shape and that it need a major clean-up. The article was written some 10-15 years back and it is a time consuming process to do a major rewrite and I am working on it. I will be doing it in month or two. And I had told this to you (User:redtigerxyz) back. Despite, I am not sure why people here are in a hurry to either block myself or reverting my edits repeatedly and initiating discussion in multiple forum simultaneously? - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 06:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and should be taken to the appropriate venue. Nevertheless, a comment: Vaikunda Raja has helpfully provided the example of Phaethon, saying "The article begins with saying that "Phaethon is the son of Helios in Greek Mythology". And the whole article is written in that context." This is incorrect. The article is written in the context of real-life, constantly relating mythological statements back to those who made them ("according to version", "in some versions", "Hyginus however attributes", "Euripides' version of the story", etc.); by contrast, the Ayya Vaikundar article presents mythological statements as wikivoice, and. intentionally or not, presents the "historical figure" as secondary and inferior to the "spiritual figure". When combined with the misleading capitalisation of numerous words and the multiple tenses used, the article's tone is certainly unacademic and possibly completely inadequate for Wikipedia's standards, like so many other of our India-related articles. Once this ANI is closed, I would be happy to perform a thorough copyedit of the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that this is purely a content dispute, given VR's rather odd post, quite a bit of which flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Not to mention the haughty comments like It amuses me; the validation instinct of User:Schazjmd and his/her authority on scrutinizing the objectivity or rationality of other users! or the odd response to a suggestion VR be limited to talk page comments only (Best luck and I would be more happy to see it). That sounds like acceptance for a topic ban from the page, but I doubt VR meant to agree to such. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"...given VR's rather odd post, quite a bit of which flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. Not to mention the haughty comments like..."...That sounds like acceptance for a topic ban from the page, but I doubt VR meant to agree to such..."

To understand this, one should go back and look into what had happened in the past 2 decades. I am afraid that somebody shall mistake me that myself "claiming ownership" etc! Please don't misunderstand things. This is just a recall of the past.

Series of onslaught had happened on these articles multiple times in the past; sometimes major ones. And in many cases, which I understood slowly, that their problem is with the content and topic rather than the quality and standards of the content. They are always selective and expect every policies be strictly followed in these articles alone. See this version; One user went to the extent of placing template 90 individual spaces across the 32Kbyte article. This happened in 2006, during a time when inline citation is not used/expected frequently in High and Medium important articles. I was new to wikipedia then, and it took time for me to figure out what was happening. Then, We worked out and began adding inline citations. We were required for citing almost every sentences and even words multiple sometimes here. And few years later I remember somebody even complained that the article is "over referenced", then! completely unaware of what happened in the past, and I was expected to explain in paragraphs about what those past happenings.

Then back in 2014 or so, The Portal:Ayyavazhi was deleted without notice and I don't know on what ground it was removed. I think Portal:Ayyavazhi is one among the top/first 200 portals in English Wikipedia(then). The Wikiproject:Ayyavazhi was removed citing lack of participation (that is acceptable) and the project page is now been redirected to WikiProject:Hinduism.

Then in 2020/2021 Few important pages, History of Ayyavazhi, Etymology of Ayyavazhi, Ayyavazhi and Hinduism etc were deleted without proper discussion. All these decade-old-articles (not less than 15-20 Kbytes each) were deleted hurriedly in a very short span of time! And 3 months back proposal was made to delete Historical Vaikundar Article altogether and was suspended after a debate later.

All these events show a clear direction; I feel that there are quiet a number of users,(some of them well co-ordinated) who are unhappy with this topic Ayya Vaikundar/Ayyavazhi itself and not about the quality of the content. They, I feel, work synchronously with goals as mentioned above. Nonetheless I am not arguing that every thing is perfect with the articles. The tone and language of the articles need attention and dedication. That is a continuous and progressive process and should/will be done overtime like every other India related article as mentioned by User:AirshipJungleman29 Thanks, - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 04:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

" ...the Ayya Vaikundar article presents mythological statements as wikivoice..." "...intentionally or not, presents the "historical figure" as secondary and inferior to the "spiritual figure" "

I agree that, the tone of the article is misleading and confusing as somebody told some days back that the difference between the mythological and historical statements in the article is undifferentiable. This issue settles on a major rewrite of the Article, which I have planned to do within a month or so since it is a laborious process.

"...the article's tone is certainly unacademic and possibly completely inadequate for Wikipedia's standards, like so many other of our India-related articles"

As told earlier I agree to this and that's why I feel that it is appropriate to do a major rewrite rather than copyedit sections or add/remove statements.

"Once this ANI is closed I would be happy to perform a thorough copyedit of the article."

Thanks for that I would like to request you to do it once I do complete a major rewrite. Thanks - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 01:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Agreeing with The Hand That Feeds You, this was brought here as it is dealt with user behaviour of its "owner", Vaikunda Raja, which suggests disregard of wiki policy - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, WP:RS. Talk:Ayya_Vaikundar#Proposed_merge_of_Historical_Vaikundar_into_Ayya_Vaikundar presents references to academic, third-party references (RS), which describe Ayya as a historical founder of Ayyavazhi born c. 1810; not the avatar merged from the sea c. 1833. However, most of the articles is based on the latter, based on WP:PRIMARY or secondary versions of Ayyavazhi scriptures. The FA Jesus is not about the mythological Jesus of the Gospels; it is about historical individual along with sections on his teachings and Chiristian belief of him being God the Son. Despite multiple users reverting to a neutral, historical article, Vaikunda Raja reverts to sectarian version of the article; which is a violation of the spirit of the WP:BRD. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Talk:Ayya_Vaikundar#Proposed_merge_of_Historical_Vaikundar_into_Ayya_Vaikundar presents references to academic, third-party references (RS), which describe Ayya as a historical founder of Ayyavazhi born c. 1810; not the avatar merged from the sea c. 1833. However, most of the articles is based on the latter, based on WP:PRIMARY or secondary versions of Ayyavazhi scriptures."

  It seems that Redtigerxyz ^Talk confuses between academic sources and reliable secondary sources; And assumes as Historical Vaikundar is written based on academic sources and religious article is based on scriptural sources. Both the articles carry academic as well as religious secondary sources which are reliable. Scholarly sources are available for both mythological as well as historical views over Vaikundar and all of them aren't essentially belief oriented.

  "The FA Jesus is not about the mythological Jesus of the Gospels; it is about historical individual along with sections on his teachings and Chiristian belief of him being God the Son."

  The Case of Vaikundar is not exactly the same a Jesus. In the case of Jesus, (whether its mythological or historical view) it is only about Jesus, from his birth to around 35 years. But here in the case of Vaikundar it involves two (and even more) different personalities. The first one from the birth to age 24, the second one from 24 to 42, another one from the end of dwapara yuga to age 42. and another one personality right before the creation of universe and exists eternally. All these characters/personalities exist distinctly in parallel within Vaikundar.

  But anyway, The jesus article is comparable at least partly.

  "The FA Jesus is not about the mythological Jesus of the Gospels; it is about historical individual along with sections on his teachings and Chiristian belief of him being God the Son."

  The Vaikundar article shall be rewritten in a month or two and will be done by considering your suggestions.

  "Agreeing with The Hand That Feeds You, this was brought here as it is dealt with user behaviour of its "owner", Vaikunda Raja, which suggests disregard of wiki policy - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, WP:RS."

  "Despite multiple users reverting to a neutral, historical article, Vaikunda Raja reverts to sectarian version of the article; which is a violation of the spirit of the WP:BRD."

  The points raised by user The Hand That Feeds You had been addressed in my previous reply with explaining the context;

  The selective assault the Ayyavazhi articles had faced in the past; The Portal, Project Page and few key pages (most of them more than a decade old) deleted silently with in a relatively short span around 2020/2021. Again user Redtigerxyz ^Talk addressing me as "owner" in a prosaic tone just for remembering and recalling the series of systematic assaults the Ayyavazhi pages faced in the past.

  I had informed earlier that I am planning for a major rewrite several times and despite few users are in a 'hurry to do something'. It suggests a strong communal/sectarian agenda who are more concerned with the 'topic' rather than article in selectively targeting these pages disproportionately under the cover of wikifying, cleaning-up, validating the article's NPOV etc mindless that I was about to rewrite the article in a few weeks time - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 12:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion is expected selectively in the Vaikundar article to be followed in its sharpest form. I would like to request Redtigerxyz ^Talk to take a look into the Rama and Krishna articles (atleast the lead section alone) and hundreds of other mythology articles in wikipedia which are clearly dominated by mythological overtones. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 13:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Law of holes seems to apply here... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Mitrayasna and Ashkan3de

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

EDIT: This post has been here for 2 weeks, but only attracted 1 reply, by Mitrayasna. I believe M's behaviour and contributions are mostly harmful to Wikipedia and wasting many people's time. Can any admin please take some appropriate action or comment on these concerns? I'll see how long I can be bothered keeping this post alive, and may therefor keep updating the text under M's reply (while the text before that should probably stay intact, if only to show how M tends to deflect the issues raised, or only wants to concern themselves with certain personal convictions).Joortje1 (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Mitrayasna and User:Ashkan3de both insist on inclusion of a text that contains obvious interpunction problems, an unreliable (probably WP:CIRCULAR) source, and a misrepresented source: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] etc.

They mostly responded WP:Listen to my and 3 other users' comments about this text and related illustrations on Talk:Animation, and to my comments, suggestions and questions on User talk:Mitrayasna, User talk:Ashkan3de and Talk:Early history of animation.

Also note behaviour that seems to indicate:

WP:TAGTEAM (if not WP:SOCKPUPPETRY): Ashkan3de only started editing on the English pages after a dispute about Mitrayasna's edits, and mainly kept placing the disputed text and related imagery. While Mitrayasna has stopped this after a 24h block, Ashkan3de continues.

WP:NOTHERE apart from insisting on inclusion of obvious interpunction errors, from glancing over Special:Contributions/Mitrayasna, this editor seems more concerned about a nationalistic/ethnic agenda than about proper encyclopedic information. Much of this gets reverted back and forth and causes disputes, see for instance: [81] [82]

WP:PLAGIARISM see [83]

Misrepresentation of discussion: [84]

Joortje1 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It is about the difference of images on a cup. There was information about this on this article's Wikipedia page before my edits, I just expanded it. And I cited a book by Giannalberto Bendazzi, one of the most famous researchers in this field. I find it very strange that he is determined to exclude the views of one of animation's greatest historians.

I hope they have no racist motives.

Mitrayasna (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have actually used Bendazzi's work as a source for several contributions to Early history of animation, while the disputed misquotation seriously misrepresents his view, as explained to Mitrayasna multiple times by at least 3 others (see: [85]). The suggestion of racist motives is strange and quite offensive imho. Joortje1 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Updates/edited statements: NOTHERE/NPOV: –nationalistic agenda: many of the contributions by Mitrayasna (M) that I checked are about Iran purportedly having pioneered whatever an artcile is about, e.g. trousers [86], the necktie [87], or ice hockey [88]. Iranian history could very well just be M's favourite topic and Iran is actually home to one of the world's oldest civilizations, but M seems to approach it as some kind of contest, where Iran has to be the first and to be as prominently represented as possible, naturally causing many disputes. –ethnic suppression: I know little about the tensions concerning Kurds in Iran and will try to keep a neutral pov (despite my strong gut feelings). Some of M's edits look very much like M wants to suppress certain claims about Kurdish culture, by erasing them or claiming them as Iranian. M was very much involved in trying to get rid of Kurdish aspects from pages about the Death of Mahsa Amini and the subsequent protests, ignoring a clear (hidden in-article) warning not to erase the name without consensus, and ignoring the near-consensus on the talk page [89], [90][91][92][93][94][95][96] (and dozens more diffs to be found in Special:Contributions/Mitrayasna) The background of this ethnic suppression was more clearly discussed on Talk:Death of Mahsa_Amini#Name Also note M's edit on Gorani language[97]: there are 3 citations that purportedly back the claim "since the 20th century, most orientalists and linguists consider it a northwest Iranian language, which is separate from the Kurdish language." It's far from what I can gather from these sources. It's as if M. just googled for sources with the terms "zaza gorani non kurdish" (see the cited google book urls) and didn't care about what's actually written there. (Unfortunately, disagreeing users didn't come up with a better solution than to change the text into "But since the 20th century, some orientalists who are not linguist, neither have any language about the Kurdish or any other languages in the region consider it a 'northwest Iranian' language, which is separate from the Kurdish language.")

WP:LAWYERING and deflection of raised concerns: M claimed the Kurdish name of Mahsa Amini's was "controversial content"[98]. When asked why, M mostly maintained that this name has no place outside her biography (apart from claiming "it just makes this article ugly and unreadable")[99]. There seems to be a clear pattern of M ignoring questions or comments, instead replying by wikilawyering, raising the authority of M's misquoted sources or the purported unreliability of other sources.[100][101] Also note that M often accused others of edit warring,[102][103][104][105][106][107][108] while engaging in them as the main edit warrior.

sockpuppetry: On 3 June, M and A received indefinite blocks on fa.wikipedia, more or less simultaeneously and with each other's names mentioned in connection to the reason for the block. Apparently this is for sockpuppetry, but google translate isn't always clear enough (see: [109]). I asked PhilKnight whether the Persian block was enough reason for a block of their en.wikipedia accounts. After Phil felt reluctant due to the uncertainties in google translate, I asked to investigate with CheckUser. To my surprise, Phil couldn't find any connection [110]. I looked a bit further into the Persian block, and from what I can gather through google translations, Ashkan3de admitted to also have the account Sasan3de. When the Ashkan3de account was inspected the Mitrayasna account popped up.[111] I could not find any previous suspicion of a link between those accounts on the Persian pages, so I still believe sockpuppetry is extremely likely.

Edit warring: [112],[113], [114] and [115], [116], [117], [118] and [119], [120], [121], [122]). For the edit warring on the Animation topic (mostly with me, I confess I initially got carried away and didn't know what better to do then to revert M and A's problematic text), M received a 24h block [123].

WP:PLAGIARISM see [124][125]

Almost every time I check some of M's contributions (which I feel I have done way too much), I find more problematic elements (I have seen more than I have reported here). Although some of it intrigues me, it's not something I really enjoy doing. I understand it may come across as a spiteful reaction to an irrelevant bit of edit warring, but I believe that the patterns that I notice in M's edits seems too structural and harmful to just let go. Joortje1 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Elelch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Elelch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA engaged in blatant WP:BATTLE behavior, obviously WP:NOTHERE. They edit only a limited number of Peru-related articles.

Their first editing conflict occurred on the Shining Path article where they attempted to place a WP:LABEL on the guerrilla group to describe them as a "terrorist organization" (despite the controversial background of the group, this is inappropriate amongst many groups on Wikipedia that may be described as "terrorist organizations"). The user then attempted to use WP:IPSOCKs to place the information back, though they were reverted by a different user. The user was then warned that they would be blocked for their edit war and sock behavior.

The user again engaged in edit warring behavior on the controversial 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt article. I attempted to ask about their edits, which were messy (included an old article title and strangely had two background sections). They in turn accused me of trying to "skew" the article's information. I personally review their concerns and made a list of edits for them in an attempt to calm the situation. They again accused me of "skewing" information. I attempted one last time to defuse the situation and reminded them of WP:CIVIL. They continued to place the messy edit into the article and accused me of misrepresenting the sources (which I can easily disprove).

In summary, this user does not appear to be here to construct an encyclopedia and is instead participating in WP:BATTLE behavior.--WMrapids (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the civility issues, but a block for edit warring is definitely warranted. They used sockpuppet accounts and continued edit warring even after being warned.

Also, User:WNrapids really should be renamed to avoid confusion. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 13:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Carpimaps: Yeah, I’ve reached out about the username and heard nothing. Thanks for bringing that to attention again. WMrapids (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

A suspicious edit that may have been performed as a WP:IPSOCK. WMrapids (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem with WMrapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is that he continues to delete duly referenced paragraphs, despite having been warned to abandon this behavior. For example, he insists on placing the in the intro that "...and the majority of Peruvians showed support for its creation in the weeks following Castillo's actions" (in reference to the intention to convene a constituent assembly) despite the fact that the majority of Peruvians do not support a new constitution or the call for a constituent assembly in 2023 (as many references support). Also, he insists on deleting the final paragraph of the introduction that, duly referenced, informs about the current judicial status of Pedro Castillo and is putting in its place a paragraph referring to a ruling by the Constitutional Court on the power of the Peruvian Congress to appoint officials that have nothing to do with Article which is about the coup attempt. I have reverted those edits because they have been arbitrarily placed without prior consensus being reached in the discussion section.--Elelch (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted dialogue and edits to help with these issues. Instead, you continue WP:BATTLE and WP:NOTHERE and using socks in edit wars. WMrapids (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I know it takes two to edit war, but user has continued edit warring behavior [1][2][3] while placing manipulative comments on the talk page and edit summaries, making false statements about the content of sources.--WMrapids (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The mentioned IP seems to have only a few edits, the behavior seems to have stopped after being warned, and there's already an open sockpuppet investigation request to address any remaining concerns regarding socks. I'd also watch out for a WP:BOOMERANG regarding recent edit warring in the WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources page, which started indirectly due to the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt move. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Chile-based dynamic IPs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a Chile-based dynamic IP who for many months now has been changing details in many film articles against consensus, despite advice and numerous warnings. They change billing block and cast list entries; change the title/headline of citations/references; change wikilink targets; over-link (etc). By the time action can be taken against them, pages are semi-protected, or a proxy bot blocks them, they've already moved on to another article or another IP address, then they return to repeat the same reverted edits over and over and over again, denying the charges against them, even when presented with diffs as proof.

You'll see that the majority of their contributions have been reverted by other editors, and yet they persist with making the same or similar changes. Latest response to another editor's level 4 vandalism warning: "Yeah yeah, whatever you say."

I do wonder if this user is on the spectrum, and I appreciate that allowances are made for such users.

Update #5: Current IP is now 201.188.146.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

• Example Edit difference. IP manually reverted by another editor with "rm addition of unreliable sources by vandal who has persistently targeted this article for over a year". Elsewhere, I also had to manually revert numerous changes of what should be American English spelling, which the user has been advised against before. Also gently advised against changing personal profiles of a genderfluid actor.

Previous incarnation: 201.188.130.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

• Example Edit difference. Still changing citation/reference titles/headlines. Incomplete or deceptive edit summary: "Added Dwayne Johnson". This edit was reverted by another editor: "Too many problems with this edit, the main being adding fake titles to the references."
• Example Edit difference. Still changing citation/reference titles/headline and spelling that should be American English, with an incomplete or deceptive edit summary.

Previous incarnation 201.188.147.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Back after previous IP's 3 day p2p proxy block.

Previous incarnation 201.188.135.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Back after previous IP's 3 day p2p proxy block.

• Example Edit difference (Making changes to the film's billing block; ignoring and removing hidden HTML note. This had already been reverted as disruptive editing)

• Example Edit difference (Deliberately, repeatedly and persistently ignoring hidden HTML note about ENGVAR spelling. This had already been reverted as disruptive editing)

• Example Edit difference (One of several reverted edits. Yet again, way down the source code, citation/reference titles/headlines have been changed, not indicated in edit summary).

Previous incarnation 201.188.134.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference ("Fixed and updated", but actually changes citation/reference titles/headlines as well. You need to scroll a long way down the source page).

• Example Edit difference ("Fixed; Army of the Dead: Lost Vegas is a TV show and starts streaming this year", but actually changes citation/reference titles/headlines as well. You need to scroll a long way down the source page).

Previous incarnation: 201.188.149.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "Stop redoing the same edits over and over when they are reverted for a reason").

• Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "Also unreliable, now considered intentional disruptive editing as previously reverted changes were done yet again").

Previous incarnation: 201.188.143.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference. Incomplete and deceptive edit summary "Fixed". Actually changes citation/reference titles/headlines.

Previous incarnation: 190.21.163.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous incarnation: 190.21.168.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Example Edit difference (reversion by another editor of multiple edits: "rv disruptive editing". Repeated changes to citation titles, followed by increase in page protection).

Previous incarnation: 191.113.205.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Received several warnings.

Many incarnations before this, especially editing four Fantastic Beasts film-related articles.

Some (but certainly not all) earlier incarnations are here: Edit summary search.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and consideration. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 11:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a block should be placed. Whether on the spectrum or not (personally it doesn't seem like they are), the user is being repeatedly disruptive, ignoring consensus, and being dismissive, with comments such as Dude stop with your drama ([126]) in response to your ANI notice. —El Millo (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

All the edits are film-related, and it's like playing whack-a-mole with so much IP hopping. Would a topic ban be appropriate, and would it span across future IPs, making it far simpler to pursue as block evasion? Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 17:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the course of action is with disruptive dinamic IPs. Range block? Temporary individual blocks for these specific IPs? So far, it seems those IPs have only been used by the same editor. —El Millo (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Lots of reversion by multiple editors, gentle advice, increasingly stern notices, range block, increased page protection, waiting for proxy bot to block have been used thus far, but the user still persists. Your WP:AIV went stale before it was even looked at. That's why, not knowing myself, I brought the issue here. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 18:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Update #5: Current IP is now 201.188.146.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 06:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The relevant range here appears to be 201.188.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Would be worthwhile to block as there is little collateral wizzito | say hello! 20:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A problem is that there are quite a lot of unchallenged recent edits in that range. If it were possible to explain how they should be reverted or at least are minor and unessential rearrangements, a block might be justified. The range was blocked for a month in July 2022. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The user is now 2601:344:4001:5DB0:A557:B305:E4E7, and making the same edits to Nicolas Cage filmography as previously told to stop and after I reverted the edit, they went to repeat the same edits on specifically the pages Ive gotten to Featured List so seems personal lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 03:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/2601:344:4001:5DB0:0:0:0:0/64 for three days. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Back around 8 January 2023, @Nthep kindly put a temporary range block on three Fantastic Beasts films. Unfortunately, the Chile-based dynamic IPs are now repeatedly, persistently editing numerous film-related articles in spite of so many reversions by other editors. I doubt many of the editors know that this is LTA, and very often don't follow-up with user talk page advice or notices. Esowteric Talk Breadcrumbs 09:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request action against a long-time disruptive user

I have decided to report the user @SLBedit for improper conduct and offensive remarks. I will start by presenting the case that impelled me to take this course of action and I will follow with some considerations about the user, in order to provide more information for the best judgment possible.

On 28 May, after I removed some content I deemed irrelevant from a Benfica related page, I was once again accused of censorship by him. I explained what happened here, and two other users agreed with me that the information deleted was not particularly relevant and could be stated elsewhere. I thought that was the second time it happened and I told the user I would report him if he did it a third time, a warning he disregarded with a silly reply. But, to my surprise, after reading the other comment he wrote towards me, I found out I had miscounted and the episode of 28 May was, in fact, the third time he made similar suggestions. The other two times were here and here.

I do not mind being called a liar. I do not like having my contribution being constantly reverted but I understand that my opinions can be and sometimes are wrong. I have accepted that if I do not take the higher road with this user, by ending or avoiding conflicts (meaning refraining from replying/contributing), these will not be solved peacefully. I am a tolerant person. Now, what I simply cannot consent to is being accused of censorship. I consider these injuries directed at me to be extremely offensive when freedom of speech is the civil liberty I value the most (for those who are not aware, Portugal lived under a dictatorship for several decades in the 20th century, a period that ended on a day that is now celebrated as Freedom Day). I value what was achieved in 1974 and I find it insulting to speak in such a frivolous way about censorship. I warned the user I would report him at strike three, so here I am.

Now, concerning the character of the user. When I started editing Benfica related articles, he was friendly towards me, to the point of expressing gratitude several times. Unfortunately, once our visions started to differ, there was a behavior change and he got more hostile. A few examples of this range from playing the "I already did this before you even edited Wikipedia" card, reverting first and creating the discussion sections in the talk pages later (while telling others to proceed the other way around), erasing without justification a link to an article I created, or simply reverting a contribution previously made only to add that information moments later (example: instead of adding the source here at 14:12, he discarded my contribution just for the very next edit at 15:16 to have the updated info reinstated with the source).

Due to the constant arguing with this user, I stopped editing several Benfica pages: the most recent season page I collaborated on is the 2017–18 one; my last edits to S.L. Benfica, S.L. Benfica B and S.L. Benfica (youth) articles date to January 2018, August 2017 and December 2018 respectively, etc. After a while, in which there were more limited but civilized interactions, that made me think that this user had changed, I am once again confronted with his defamatory remarks and his over-the-top posture.

It is not for me to evaluate, but I truly believe this user cannot and will not change his disruptive and impulsive attitude, specially in articles where he considers himself an authority and believes he has carte blanche to do whatever he wants (the disdain he showed when I warned him of a possible report supports this statement). He constantly accuses other users of having multiple accounts (to me, it happened this time and this one, among others), he edited the user pages of two other users without their consent (here and here), and he engaged in two other unacceptable personal attacks: he called me a blank file (disregarding my contributions and meaning I do not provide value to Wikipedia) and he called another user "fdp" (short for "filho da puta", literally "son of a bitch" in Portuguese).

I am pretty sure he will try to deconstruct my case and clear his image by showing that I also did several things wrong in the past. With that in mind, I only want to point out that I do not recall having a single altercation with any other user, and he has already a conflict history with several users, which granted him a one month blocking at one occasion.

With everything I presented here, I believe the moderation has reasons to intervene and I hope they do. Besteirense (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR. All I know is that, since P3DRO (talk · contribs) got permanently blocked, for harrassing and insulting me for years, Besteirense become more active again (what a coincidence) and started conflicting with me until the creation of this report. While Besteirense has been complaining, I've been improving Wikipedia. Goodbye. PS: you don't own the "2017–18 S.L. Benfica season" article. SLBedit (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

SLBedit, looking at Besteirense’s edits, it looks like this editor has been consistently making about 20 edits per quarter for at least 2 years. I don’t see much (if any) an increase after P3DRO was blocked in January 2023.

We don’t routinely and repeatedly accuse others of being sock puppets.

You should assume Besteirense is independent of P3DRO unless proven otherwise. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The feeling I have is that he started editing more Benfica-related articles after P3DRO got blocked. BTW, "a blank file (disregarding my contributions and meaning I do not provide value to Wikipedia)" is a complete lie; it wasn't "blank file", but "BlankFile", which is a user from serbenfiquista.com SLBedit (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No, Be QuietAL728 hasn't retired; actually, he continues very active in Portuguese football-related bios (it seems he can't quit Wikipedia), the only difference is that he gave up on his previous accounts, and exposes his IP addresses like he did before the account creation. PS: User is back with another account since December 2022. SLBedit (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@A. B.: I find it very odd that Besteirense knows so much about my interactions with P3DRO. It's pretty obvious the two are related (otherwise, why would Besteirense be so interesting in defending PEDRO?), and I'm not saying they are sock accounts! SLBedit (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

As for the "thanks", so what? I also gave them to P3DRO and other users. SLBedit (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The "long-time disruptive user" (LOL) has contributed more to Wikipedia than many other users, and has reverted vandalism (and reported it) countless times. Calling me that is an offense. SLBedit (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was Besteirense who accused me of wanting to have the "last edit" (sic) on articles – a way of trying to limit my contributions to Wikipedia – while he did/does exactly that in the 2017–18 S.L. Benfica season, article which he created. SLBedit (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This report is the perfect example of cherry picking. SLBedit (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out three things: first, the accusations of being a sock puppet only stopped after A. B. called the accuser to reason. I guess that is already a tiny win.

Second, I was not defending P3DRO or his behavior; I just used his example (one of many) to prove that the target of my report does not always contribute to this environment with good content, or calling someone a "fdp" is a positive interaction? What is the excuse that justifies and leaves unpunished the author of this personal attack? What about vandalizing Be QuietAL728's user page, is that quality content?

And third, moving right past from the nervous attempts to divert the attention from what is really important, I will make the goal of my complain crystal clear: I did not wrote that SLBedit did not had an overall positive contribution to Wikipedia; I have shown, through my example (again, one of many) that his attitude does not allow other users to have better contributions, namely in Benfica related pages, either by having their words reverted by someone who does not assume good faith or by lack of participation (I mentioned my self-imposed ban on several pages).

Post-scriptum: six years from 2017 to 2023. So, yes, it has been a long time; no offense there. Besteirense (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"his attitude does not allow other users to have better contributions" is another lie. If a contribution is perfect, I'll leave it. If it's good and can be improved, I'll improve it. If it doesn't improve anything or is vandalism, I'll revert it. You are simply digging up the past – all that was settled a long time ago – because you can't stand me improving your contributions. SLBedit (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Everything wrong there, but I will fix that for you. Here's a 2-in-1 example of what a lie is: you wrote you knew I had become more active when another user got blocked. You clearly did not knew because it was not true, yet you consciously chose to write that.

I had to go to the past fetch examples of your misbehavior because I do not know when will be the next time you will accuse me of censorship or what pieces of content will you remove. Like Wikipedia, I too cannot predict the future.

Adding information with no real encyclopedic significance is not making an improvement, and neither is reinstating the same information you previously deleted (guess what, x-y y is still equal to the value that was already there). Removing the link to the page I created from the Taça de Portugal article is the perfect example of what you call "improving [my] contribution" but, in reality, was just a pointless and revengeful revert. Besteirense (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• SLBedit, hi. You both are long-term contributors. It's not conducive to proactive editing if you allude to another editor as a possible sock. I don't want you to get me wrong, but either take the report to SPI or immediately stop these accusations and consider this a final warning. Once again, please don't take these words negatively. My intent is to ensure you guys discuss proactively. To issues of content, I see both your sides and would tend to encourage further proactive article talk-page discussions that lead to consensus. Dispute resolution is a good way to go if you both don't succeed in gaining consensus. Start with this and let's see how it goes. Once again, no sock accusation any more please. Thanks, Lourdes 10:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes, thank you for your reply. I noticed you and A. B. focused mainly on the sock puppet accusations, which to me were the least important points of my argument because I know he has no case there. After "[seeing] both sides" do you really think that finding a consensus in the other subjects is possible here? If I suggest this user should be temporarily blocked for offensive remarks (accusing me of censorship, calling "son of a bitch" to someone, vandalizing user pages, comparing me to a random user from a den of fanatics, etc) do you think he will agree with the penalty? If I argue this user should have a permanent zero-revert rule so that he learns to respect other user's contributions should I expect him to just accept the punishment? Or none of the above justifies any kind of (severe) intervention from the moderation and it is I that should agree with that? Besteirense (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  Besteirense, if SLBedit hints at your being a sock even once, he will be immediately blocked. While you might not realise the import of this, SLBedit would. Also, this discussion is fruitful to document that we have advised you both strongly to resume discussions with no personal attack and with civil behaviour on relevant talk pages, and to take the dispute resolution steps in case of lack of consensus. In case the conversations between you and SLBedit turn significantly negative again in the future, or results in edit warring, please come back here and link to this discussion. That is all for now. Let's hope it improves... if not, we cross the bridge at that time. Thanks, Lourdes 04:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that this discussion was important, since the user finally stopped those silly accusations. But, since the only point taken into account by the moderation was the sock puppet one, I will remove from the report the information that was not addressed. If that is not allowed, and I am not aware that it is not, then I would ask you to revert my last contribution to this section. Thank you. Besteirense (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Lourdes, I have come back like you told me to do. Looks like your advise to "resume discussions with no personal attack and with civil behaviour on relevant talk pages" was not taken into account by the user: on our very first interaction after this report, not only did he revert a contribution of mine before creating the discussion on the talk page, he also stopped the argument exchange and proceeded to use masked profanity instead of correctly interpreting my words and, not happy with that, broke the WP:DTTR guideline. Besteirense (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You forgot to tell Lourdes that you called me a liar: "Also, who cares if Rui Costa is caught lying?, you have also been caught several times here too. Disagreeing on something isn't lying. You called me a liar, I called you a liar, but at least I retracted my irate reply to your lie. You haven't retracted your offensive comment. SLBedit (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not call you a liar there. I tried to make you understand, in a polite way, that the very same thing you were criticizing (getting caught after lying) had already happen to you here at Wikipedia. Again, "you wrote you knew I had become more active when another user got blocked. You clearly did not knew because it was not true, yet you consciously chose to write that". This is an example that testifies what I wrote; there is no need for you to get offended with the truth.

Also, once again you missed the point: I did not complain about you calling me a liar; I wrote that you used masked profanity when you called me one. Besteirense (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

How on earth is removing, in good faith, a retired template vandalism? From Template:Retired: "Retiring implies that you will not resume editing at any later date." That user is just gaming the system by creation accounts, "retiring" and coming back with another account(s) and/or IP address(es). SLBedit (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes, does Besteirense, if SLBedit hints at your being a sock even once, he will be immediately blocked apply here? —DIYeditor (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

DIYeditor, I'm talking about another user, Be QuietAL728, which "retired" years ago (the account is retired but the person/user isn't). I was accused of vandalism because I removed a retired template from that user's page years ago. In short: "99.9% of your edits aren't vandalism, m'kay. You edited another user's page? Block him!" SLBedit (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes DIYeditor. But which diff are you referring to? Thanks, Lourdes 05:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps vandalism is not the right word but you removing the template is clearly inappropriate. I'm not going to read the long discussion above nor any of those that lead up to it, but I assume someone has told you it was inappropriate so it is concerning IMO that you still don't seem to understand you should not be removing the retired template from another editor's userpage without their explicit permission or community consensus.

Personally as a strong believer in the 'indefinite doesn't mean for ever, just until it's no longer needed' mantra I see no harm indefinitely blocking you, if you've made it clear you're going to continue to remove the retired template from other editor's userpages inappropriately although I know others will feel we should wait until you've done it one more time.

Either way no matter how good your other editing is, if you're going to continue to edit inappropriately occasionally you shouldn't be surprised when you're blocked. A fair number of blocks are over that small percentage of an editor's edits which are bad which we can't stop them doing otherwise when their other edits are good.

In the unlikely even no one has told you yet, if you feel the editor should not be using the retired template since they are still actively editing then you are welcome to talk to them about it. If they refuse to remove it then you can bring it up somewhere perhaps here although frankly editors significantly editing while they've marked themselves as retired is something ANI tends to treat as 'not good but not worth taking action over' from the few times it's came up that I can recall.

You may have more luck if it's not actually the retired template that is a concern but an editor using an account serially which is also complicated but can lead to illicit WP:SOCK concerns if the editor is perceived as trying to evade scrutiny. Of course you will need good evidence they are the same editor.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne, Lourdes, his modus operandi revolves around accusing other users, who disagree with his view, of having multiple accounts. Other examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. Here, he accused a user of having 18! sock accounts, and got an " Unrelated to each other" reply for 17! of them. He shoots everywhere with those remarks to see if any accusation sticks. And why does he do it? That is simple: if he gets into conflicts with three or four users (each of them with multiple accounts), it's possible that it's them who are at fault, but if instead of only three or four he has problems with fifteen or twenty unrelated users, then it is the constant that should probably be blamed.

Regarding the general agreement of content: if you check the FC Porto article's revision history, you can find 16 reverts to this user for "no consensus". He did not care about the outcome of the talk page discussion and consistently re-added information, twice with the biased summary "Restored facts about the most corrupt club in the world". Hoping to reach a consensus with this user is, in my opinion, a futile exercise. Besteirense (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by SurferSquall

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

I have concern on SurferSquall editing behavior, since he has started numerous edit wars in just a couple of months according to his talk page and edit history, keeps reverting changes eventhough consensus was made, and I don't think he bother the read explanation or source when provided. He also reverting changes that he himself has agreed to. I believe those are signs of disruptive editing, as he are:

1. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. as shown in the discussion in Talk:List of active Brazilian military aircraft#Regarding C-390 / KC-390 and Talk:List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force.
2. Rejects or ignores community input, whereas he insist on using non-RS source (planespotter), eventhough other editors have pointed out as shown here and here
3. willing to engage in WP:EDITWAR if other editor edits didn't align with his views.

Please also note that his talk page is full of multiple warnings and he was also blocked twice for edit-warring. At least there are two administrators (Ad Orientem and Daniel Case) who have concerns on his editing behavior. And I am really considering that the issue are he is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Although he did says that he will abide to policy and guidelines in his unblock request, his after that statement action proved otherwise. Hence IMO he is WP:NOTHERE for general disruptive editing behavior. Kindly please look up on his edit behavior. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The source I provided for the Brazilian page was form Jane’s, one of the most highly regarded military sources in the world. You seem to be the one continuing to ignore consensus, at both pages, not me. Also, as I stated on the Brazilian page, there are certain international aircraft designations which apply to all air forces in the world, ones that those governments cannot change. This is because the designations in question come from ICAO and other military treaties. As for the accusations you make towards me, it seems you are projecting quite a bit SurferSquall (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It was me who said Janes is reliable source for military topics as stated here and it was you who said Janes is wrong as stated here. Again, you contradict yourself. It seems Ad Orientem was right that you might be a case of WP:CIR. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't insult my intelligence. An ANI was hardly needed- you could've just discussed it- as on the Indonesian page, you seem to insist that you are correct, based on older, factually incorrect sources. not to mention your numerous grammatical errors. SurferSquall (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR was suggested by other editor on your talk page, but I second that. And yes, it was already discussed. But, the fact that we have lengthy discussion of simple issue on Talk:List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force and Talk:List of active Brazilian military aircraft, is reinforce my believe that this is WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue. (Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may be disruptive and time-wasting, especially if they can't understand what the problem is). Ckfasdf (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not that I understand, it's that you keep making those changes while entirely ignoring anything I say or add SurferSquall (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Since you are somewhat active in WP, I always put gap between my comment in talkpage and actual edit in the article. And, I am only edit if you didn't respond on talk page after 1-2 days because I assume your lack of response means you no longer have any issue. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the unnecessarily long and tedious discussion on the Talk:List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force, I can vouch Ckfasdf. Despite having pointed out multiple times that the source SurferSquall using was incorrect or outdated, or even when more up to date sources were provided, he still won't budge for around a week, even if a 3 to 1 consensus was reached. He even revert edits that uses his own source and/or he agrees with. He also revert an edit without a good reason (seemingly just because if not out of spite). EvoSwatch (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You continued to refuse to add newer or better sources than mine. The article STILL does not have these sources cited. It is not that hard to add them if they are as readily available as you claim SurferSquall (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Your word contradicts your action, you said here that The source I provided for the Brazilian page was form Jane’s, one of the most highly regarded military sources in the world, but you also reject newer source from Jane's on [127]. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you really that ignorant? SurferSquall (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with my sentence above? You.. yourself clearly said Jane’s, one of the most highly regarded military sources in the world. Yet, you also reject Jane's one that edit. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

My reply was about the Indonesia article, yet you mentioned the Brazil article for no reason SurferSquall (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI board is to discuss your behavior, not about content. I am just pointing out that you have apply different standard on reliable source (Janes). Ckfasdf (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If you hate WAF so much (for zero reason whatsoever) then I can offer to go and wipe away every aircraft fleet table on every military page, as they all feature it as a source SurferSquall (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I also have serious concerns regarding WP:CIR and WP:EW with this user. Their recent behaviour at Qatar Airways [128] [129] is another proof. In my view, editing Wikipedia for them is a matter of winning or losing. They are not here to build an encyclopedia.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a strict 1RR editing restriction for 12 months? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to lose with trying.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@SurferSquall I think there is a growing consensus that you are engaging in battleground behavior which is not conducive to a collegial project. As such I am seriously considering placing you under a WP:1RR editing restriction. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Please, feel free to point out where I actually did anything wrong other than simply reverting bad edits SurferSquall (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, please show me a discussion with an actual consensus that Planespotters is unreliable. Unless you are able to do this, there is no reason for me to stop using it. Or shall I remove every bit of info on this website sourced to them? SurferSquall (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You really never read other editor comments, didn't you? it was mentioned many times by other editor (including me, on the first comment of this ANI report). Ckfasdf (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You have ZERO (0) proof that it is unreliable. None! And you refuse to show me any! The discussion @Jetstreamer showed me had NO consensus. SurferSquall (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read my first comment above esp point 2. Did you see that there's wikilinks to the discussion there? . Ckfasdf (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Which is essentially every fleet table and fleet article on Wikipedia SurferSquall (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

So you have any idea how little I would be able to contribute if that were true? SurferSquall (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You claim that Planespotters is an unreliable source, yet you continue to link to a discussion which does not prove that SurferSquall (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that there was only one editor in WP:PLANESPOTTERS who was arguing it was reliable, and multiple others giving good reasons why it wasn't, that discussion doesn't support your assertion above. Just because it didn't end up on WP:RSP or get outright deprecated doesn't mean that it is still reliable. If you continue to persist with your WP:IDHT carry-on, you are going to end up blocked outright rather than "just" restricted.

Don't insult my intelligence - WP:CIVIL

not to mention your numerous grammatical errors. - Attacks technicalities whilst avoiding the main point

you keep making those changes while entirely ignoring anything I say or add - Wow.

Are you really that ignorant? - WP:NPA

I can offer to go and wipe away every aircraft fleet table on every military page, as they all feature it as a source - POINTy argument.

Please, feel free to point out where I actually did anything wrong -WP:IDHT

You have ZERO (0) proof that it is unreliable. None! And you refuse to show me any! - WP:IDHT

Or shall I remove every bit of info on this website sourced to them? - POINTy argument.

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I wasn’t going to make those edits unless someone wanted me to. Please, go ahead and read the discussions on Talk:List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force and Talk:List of active Brazilian military aircraft. Maybe you’ll understand my point then? SurferSquall (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Abdullah1099

I'm here to report a sequence of disruptive edits by Abdullah1099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in a way that makes it necessary to double check and update every one of his modifications. Those edits are mostly focused on spaceflight timeline pages, like List of spaceflight launches in January–June 2023, and are of mostly two types:

• edits without the necessary updating and/or insertion of reliable sources (e.g., this diff)
• edits that don't comply with the standards of the templates being modified (e.g., not adding items in alphabetical order like in this case)

Moreover, the user has been advised multiple times in his talk page to pay more attention about these issues, like in this and this cases, and despite the apparent reception of those advises the user kept engaging with his disruptive behaviour: as you can check, all the examples linked above date back to after the messages in the talk page. In light of all that, and given that this series of disruptive edits has been going on for several weeks at this point, I would request actions to be taken in order to prevent this from happening in the future. Fm3dici97 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Minor block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please block Special:Contributions/77.99.96.62 for disruptive editing. They have been asked several times not to add capital letters to the middle of sentences, but they are still doing it[130]. Unfortunately, I see no other way of getting their attention. Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Encyclopedia Britannica is better than Wikipledia

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Denniss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

He alway remove a valid source, see here [131] (he is German and may be he don't like a bad new for German weapons)2001:EE0:4262:9440:F4E2:6F76:B938:B578 (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Psychicmuppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category removals by MagicatthemovieS

User User:MagicatthemovieS

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

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

Per their talk page, it appears that category work by MagicatthemovieS has been disputed multiple times over the past several years. Sometimes Magic has explained their reasoning.[132][133] Magic never responded to the most recent comments (between April and now) on their talk page questioning their category changes,[134] although in a related conversation at User talk:Valereee, another editor justified one of Magic's changes. It's possible that all of the recent category changes Magic has made are appropriate but it's not a good situation that they have failed to respond to other editors' concerns. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Despressso fails to WP:DROPTHESTICK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found a facebook group with seemingly paid editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin take a look at @Royroy23? Most of their edits are on Kurdish subjects are disruptive where they remove anything Kurdish like[135] and they have been warned on their talkpage by another editor and I. Semsûrî (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately seems to be another case of Turkish nationalist editing, which is becoming more common lately. Comments like this are unhelpful (accusing others of spreading propaganda or being paid) and tendentious. — Czello ^(music) 10:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE'd for ethno-nationalist editing and personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive Editing by .Raven

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

• We can't rely on RSs because the Babylonians were incorrect about the value of Pi
• If any RS has an interpretation of a Medical Examiner's report that is different than .Raven's interpretation, then that RS should be immediately discounted as unreliable
  • Doubling down on this one, by claiming that RSs who disagreed with their interpretation must be "factually incorrect."
• If hundreds of RSs agree on a basic fact, we can't repeat it, because hundreds of RSs smeared the Central Park Five back in 1989
  • They repeated this argument six times in total, to five different editors. [136] [137] [138] [139] [140]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @.Raven I suggest you stop[141] or everyone's patience will be exhausted. Nemov (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revoke TPA, please.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please revoke talk page access for <this checkuser blocked account>, see edits after blocked (all current edits). – 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:80E:B1DC:2806:174D (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Done and WP:PROMO deleted. El_C 05:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Contributions/Ash20055

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Vandalism only account. Over ten pages disrupted within the last three days, no good faith edits. Ecrusized (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: This seems like it should go to WP:AIV - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated reversal, even of attempt at dialogue

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

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

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

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

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

Taluzet at Berber languages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Taluzet keeps edit warring at Berber languages disregarding attempts at constructive discussion and consensus-building. They keep deleting sourced content and replacing it with outdated unreliable ones that suit their personal bias, such as ones from the 19th century and mirrors of Wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR), even trying to cite images in the talk page. They have also cited a journal from 1986 [142] but I am not sure whether its reliable or not. I have tried solving the dispute by combining all sources in a neutral tone, but this user continues to claim that the word Amazigh was used as an ethnonym for the Berber people, despite his source only suggesting that outsiders used similar sounding words (Mazacs/Mazighes/Mazazaces) to refer to them. They completely misinterpeted it and claimed that Berbers called each other Amazigh [143]. They misinterpreted another source to claim that the word was historically used in North Africa, despite the source being in present tense and talking about modern day usage, not historic. Their assumption [144] just shows that they're just spreading original research. In my talk page, they declared their intention to edit war and made personal attacks, consequently breaking the 3 revert rule in the article. [145] In other related pages, they make unsourced edits. [146][147][148] Skitash (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I know nothing about the underlying content dispute, but User:Taluzet is showing an unwillingness to settle things cooperatively with this edit. Maybe an admin with a block hammer would be "official" enough? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks like SOMEONE doesn't know how the Wiki works :/ (and really doesn't want to learn). Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 12:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

He was unwilling to accept the fact amazigh people called themselves amazigh in the past and call themselves amazigh in the present demonstrated by Salem Chaker's paper he is still trying to ignore because "its from 1986" the reason why I said that is because he kept reverting my edits and sending me messages that seem professional in my talk page to stop me from reverting his, I was the one who asked for a third party... Taluzet (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You have to combat misinformation. He is just trying to discredit my perfectly reasonable sources because one of them was from the 19th century, in what way is that a problem, the source is for the etymology of a word. The only images I sent in his talk page were extracts of works I've sourced that I assumed he didn't have access to, I don't see why it would cause any problem if I didn't use images as sources in the actual article?

In North African politics, it is very common for racist people to call Berbers Bulgar invaders or a French nationalist fabrication, he did a personal attack as well.

I don't see why I should be sourcing a claim like "the letter gaf is used in Shilha", are people sourcing their claim that Jawi uses the Gaf? Matter of fact, nobody sources any claim of usage of the letter in that article. Taluzet (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just discuss the issue on the talk page rather than edit war and say that you will continue edit warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I discussed the issue on his talk page, I invite you to read it. Taluzet (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have already refuted your claims yet you continue to make the same assertions. Your source does not support "amazigh people called themselves amazigh in the past". It only mentions the exonyms which foreigners referred to them as, but you are misinterpreting this and claiming that Berbers called each other with endonyms which is completely false. This only shows your intentions to POV push as you deleted sourced content which clearly said Berbers did not have a collective endonym for themselves, and you continue to edit war to delete this from the page. To address your false accusation, I have never called Berbers "Bulgar invaders or a French nationalist fabrication". Your remark trying to indirectly refer to me as "racist" is another personal attack. Skitash (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Here, the word Amazigh was used AS AN ETHNONYM by amazigh people in Antiquity https://www.cairn.info/revue-strategique-2009-1-page-129.htm?ref=doi#no5, amazigh people used the word Amazigh in the middle ages (Van Boogert 1997 in the sources I put in the article), and use it today (Kossmann 2020 in the sources I put in the article). How is it a Berber nationalist fabrication? Taluzet (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That source doesn't support your claims either, nor does it mention any specific ethnonym. Could you provide a direct quote? If you are referring to "Masax", it appears that you are misinterpreting sources again. Using a translation of a word by Van Boogert does not prove that the word was used either. Please do not go off topic, the focus here is what they referred to themselves historically, not the present. It is interesting to note that you previously cited the same present-tense source to support your claim about the historic use of 'Amazigh' as an endonym. Skitash (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Skitash @Phil Bridger Would a block proposal for @Taluzet be necessary at this point? This user's constant disruptive editing and personal attacks clearly warrant a block. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that implementing a block would be necessary in this situation. Taluzet appears to be an ethnic pov-pushing account that is clearly WP:NOTHERE just like you said. Skitash (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We'll see what mods decide to do.

In the meantime it would be lovely of your to answer my question. Taluzet (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It does prove it though? Van de Boogert's book contains a transliteration and translation of a 17th century Shilha Book, where the word "tamazixt" is used to refer to the language, and "imazighn" is used to refer to "Berbers".

Did you read my source? "Corippe emploie le terme grec et poétique d’“armée massyle” pour qualifier l’armée des tribus maures. Il utilise aussi le mot “Mazax” que les Maures emploient pour se désigner". A Latin author from the 6th century reports the word "Mazax" that they use to self designate.

Now a question, do you believe the word imazighn is a 20th century invention? Taluzet (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In what way is "Maxax" the same thing as "Amazigh"? And in what way does a single word in a 17th century book prove that it was widespread and used all over the Maghreb? To answer your question, I do not make up facts but I will let you read what the source I left on the talk page says [149]. The point of this discussion is not for you to repeat your same arguments, I will leave this conversation for the administrators to decide. Skitash (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Mazax is obviously the same word as amazigh, gh and x in Tamazight are interchangeable (hence the variant tamazixt used by Chleuh), of course a Latin author would not write "Amazigh" and will corrupt the word a little, it happens for all ethnonyms transcribed to Latin.

The multiple times Amazigh/Tamazixt are used in modern and Medieval books shows it was in use in the Middle Ages, and since it's used now all over Morocco as well as by Tuaregs, we can conclude there's a contuinuity in Amazigh as an autonym. Taluzet (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That's called original research. Like Phil Bridger said, you're still misunderstanding the nature of this discussion. Skitash (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

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

– .Raven  .talk 06:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Taluzet, you seem to misunderstand the nature of this discussion. Issues of what source says what should be discussed on the article talk page. This discussion is about your behaviour in editing the article before a consensus is reached, and saying that you will continue to do so. Once again, I know nothing about the underlying content dispute, and this is not the place to discuss it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I tried to reach a consensus, but all he kept repeating was "your sources aren't reliable" and "your source is from 1876". When he called it a French nationalist invention I understood that his motive wasn't to reach a consensus. Taluzet (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I never called it a French nationalist invention. Do not spread false information about me. Skitash (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh my bad, I was refering to this quote from your talk page "The term Imazighen was introduced by Berber nationalists in the 20th century to counter the image that they were a collection of diverse tribes". Although this is also a factually wrong trope used by Anti-Berbers, since the word is very well attested. Taluzet (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  But please, even if you block me, don't keep that false remark in the Berber languages page, it is such a recurring theme in Anti-Berber discourse and so easily disprovable, just read the talk page. Taluzet (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  This just shows that you didn't read any of the sources I sent. [150] "To counter the image that Berbers were a mere collection of disparate tribes speaking mutually incomprehensible dialects, they introduced an indigenous term of self-referral–Imazighen". I did not make up anything or misinterpret anything like you did. Skitash (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah yes, tribes, that each speak a separate language, definitely accurate and has no undertones.

  Anyways, I added a remark that Berbers were not culturally unified, but to say they didn't use the word amazigh is false. Taluzet (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is true that imazighen as a term that applies to all Berbers wasn't the reality, as most Berbers weren't even aware of the existance of their relatedgroups, it was simply a shared word most Berbers used to refer to their own group. You're mixing self-referral and united identity. Amazigh in the modern day was expanded to mean all Berber groups, because it is a well attested word in practically all of the Amazigh languages, that aren't limited to tribes Taluzet (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Propose partial block from the article for both users due to the straightforward comparison of article history to talk page history, which reflects well on no one. Then, after you've both had a good long read of Wikipedia:Civility, you can move on to the steps described at WP:DR. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  We discussed it on my talk page. Skitash (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Block proposal for Taluzet

Taluzet has been disruptive editing, edit warring (and when confronted about it, dismissively continued to edit war) and personal attacks. I propose an indef block on Taluzet's account. Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 16:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed: this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Deleting sourced content, source misinterpretation, ethnic POV-pushing, edit warring, personal attacks. Skitash (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You misinterpreted the source yourself, she said "they do not refer to themselves as Berber", and you wrote "they do not refer to themselves as Berber/Amazigh", when did I attack you personally? Taluzet (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not, and this place isn't for you to repeat the same arguments. Go and have a look at the talk page. Skitash (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment noting that I've seen this Amazigh thing elsewhere, [151], there may be a broader WP:ADVOCACY issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's a pretty well known issue in North African politics, Amazigh is the word Berbers prefer to use to refer to their people, since the word Barbar in Arabic means Barbarian, and that a lot of Berber languages share variants the word "Amazigh" to refer to their people, or Tamazight to refer to the language, but some people, non-Berbers mostly, don't like using it, so they justify it by saying it is a modern invention and that Berbers never used 'Amazigh' to refer to themselves,

I don't mind using Berber for terminology, but I was perplexed at the claim that it wasn't used, me myself being a speaker from a group that uses it actively. Taluzet (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, sounds plausible (and quite human). The basic WP-solution is to use what sources generally use, and perhaps try to add Amazigh sometimes on some sort of WP:PROPORTION basis. It may be productive to attempt a WP:RFC on "How should we mention Amazigh in Berber-related articles?" at someplace like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind usage of Berber to be honest, what I reverted was a claim that the word Amazigh isn't traditionally used by Berber people.

It'd be a good idea for people seeking usage of terms with less undertones to go through this procedure though, I'll contact more active Amazigh Wikipedians to see if they'd like going asking for a more proportionate use of the words. Thanks! Taluzet (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility from Gwillhickers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would appreciate some guidance in dealing with some chronic incivility from Gwillhickers. I have found it difficult to interact with him without him personally attacking me and accusing me of acting in bad faith.

• In March, he engaged me in a long discussion about how to present the Constitution of the United States. After I argued that we should avoid the phrase the people without qualification, he said that I was bent on the effort of casting aspersions on the U.S. (I am not.) After I said that the United States was not the first democracy in America, he repeated that I was bent on slighting American history. I asked him to assume good faith and stop making personal attacks.
• On 22 March, in Headbomb's AN/I thread, Gwillhickers referenced what he called my obvious SJW behavior. I asked him to stop calling me names. His response doubled down on his social justice warrior comment, arguing that it did not count as a personal attack.
• In the same conversation, he described my apparent attempt to obscure the discussion and ward off any newcomers to the discussion. and my hope that we will forever be going over these things (Neither of these characterizations are accurate.) I reminded him to assume good faith, but he responded that good faith went out the window sometime ago.
• On 27 March, in an unrelated discussion at Talk:James Madison, he tried to canvass more editors into the AN/I discussion about me, describing me as an editor who routinely tag bombs articles, and then follows up with reverts, multiple proposals over menial items in the middle of unresolved discussions, with pages of endless talk. After I warned him to stop canvassing, he deleted the warning without responding.
• On 6 April, I argued that Allreet's proposed text was not neutral because it favored a nationalist point of view, which is inherently subjective. Gwillhickers responded that I was making an assumption, that a "nationalist" point of view is somehow erroneous or less than accurate. This strikes me as tendentious, suggesting that Wikipedia should take sides on controversial issues and prioritize the "accurate" point of view.
• On 25 April, Gwillhickers deleted one of Maxxhiato's comments. When I showed him the diff and referred him to WP:TPO, he denied it and accused me of acting in bad faith. When I suggested that he read H:DIFF for help reading diffs, he accused me of harassment. I eventually convinced him that he had deleted the comment.
• On 17 May, I suggested that we should not limit the scope of Constitution of the United States § Influences to Gwillhickers's European examples, citing a source about Indigenous democracies that served as an inspiration for U.S. government. He accused me of making content decisions on the basis of race. (I never make content decisions informed by racial discrimination.) I reminded him that Wikipedia considers an accusation of racial discrimination to be a personal attack. He replied that his characterization of me was an academic criticism rather than a personal attack. I tried to clarify my position, citing another source about Indigenous influence on the U.S. founding. He repeated his accusation that was making decisions based on race.

As you can see, I have repeatedly confronted Gwillhickers about his inappropriate conduct. I have been trying to follow the WP:RUCD policy, but it has been exhausting and ineffective, and our interactions continue to be unpleasant. I would appreciate any help, whether it is something more that I can do, a second voice that Gwillhickers might listen to, or a good reason for me to simply suck it up.  — Freoh 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see repeated longstanding disruptive behaviour, but I looking at the actual diffs and not the cherry picked quotes, I don't see that behaviour from Gwillhickers. Being criticized is not the same thing as being subject to uncivility. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• "His response doubled down on his social justice warrior comment, arguing that it did not count as a personal attack." It certainly does not sound as a compliment. He/she is trying to discredit all of your suggestions and to portray you as an extremist of some kind.Dimadick (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• Why in the world have you formatted the diff links in this way? It makes them nearly impossible to follow. jp×g 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't yet looked is to the rights and wrongs of this post, but I see nothing wrong with the way diffs are presented, which looks clearer than in most reports. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, totally trivial issue, but I disagree, as now the reflist section is below the extended "Comments from Gwillhickers" section and one has to scroll down to find the actual link. Freoh seems to be averse to including an https link[152] but also to be avoiding excessive piped links to e.g. to the special:diff for the same diff... Freoh has been taken to task for their linking habits so perhaps they are just trying to find the best solution. There are basically six possibilities:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1144040967
  2. [153]
  3. diff
  4. Special:Diff/1144040967
  5. diff

  Personally I think #2 is the most appropriate for what is being done here, but I don't want to try to dictate to anyone what formatting styles they use. Freoh is being knocked around enough in all this (rightfully so or not) and I feel they are probably acting completely in good faith in attempting to meet the community's concerns. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll simply state that anyone calling another editor "SJW" or "social justice warrior" is absolutely violating WP:NPA. The term is only used to belittle others and dismiss them as insincere or ignorant.

I won't delve into the rest of this report, but that alone is not cool. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Gwillhickers

• When Freoh is taken to task over various issues he typically resorts to accusing others of "personal attacks", "canvasing", nationalistic bias", "systemic bias", lacking good faith, etc, To demonstrate this, examples include accusations made to ErnestKrause on his talk page See: User talk:ErnestKrause#No personal attacks'.  Here Freoh also accused numerous editors of bias, including ErnestKrause, Cmguy777, BusterD, Hawkeye7, Indy beetle, Ceranthor, Epicgenius, SNUGGUMS, Randy Kryn, DIYeditor and myself. See: User talk:ErnestKrause#Canvassing This is not at all good faith.

• As one can hopefully see, the above claims made now by Freoh are tainted with a lot of opinion. While the discussions in question are not of a friendly nature they do not involve outright incivility or "personal attacks", or anything that amounts to disruptive behavior, for which I have been repeatedly accused. The latest issue began on the U.S. Constitution Talk page where Freoh said

If we are including influences that are not universally accepted, then we should include non-white influences as well.

To which I replied — "Seeking other such political philosophers simply on the basis that they may be "non white" is not the way to approach matters".

• For this Freoh came to my Talk page and accused me by saying "I do not appreciate your accusations of racial discrimination", and for "systemic bias" on the Constitution Talk page. No one ever said that we must only include European, or white, influences only, and in several instances I invited Freoh to provide content on any "non-white" influences if such content was covered in reliable sources.

• Freoh has engaged in similar matters on the Constitution Talk page, once accusing Allreet of presenting a "nationalist point of view", in spite of the fact that numerous reliable sources were cited, historians Freoh also accused of having a "nationalist perspective".. Freoh has had every opportunity to include other perspectives in the article if they are cited in reliable sources, and has never even attempted it. Instead he engages in endless talk for which he has been taken to task for here at ANI, by numerous editors in the recent past.   In an RfC which began on Feb. 2, lasting approximately six weeks, he made numerous and ever-changing proposals and again filled the discussion with endless talk involving spurious POV's for which he received no consensus by the time S Marshall closed that RfC. Now it seems he is about to make the same attempt here with lengthy talk, as his claims above are highly exaggerated or simply distort what has actually happened.

• If there is anything that can be considered truly uncivil or a personal attack, I apologize for that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Freoh mentions an ANI discussion in which he feels he was mistreated. That discussion was started because of his penchant to misrepresent interactions and to "warn" editors for things that they have not done. It then expanded in scope to several different conduct issues, including the ones that Gwillhickers has described in their disputes with Freoh. I have not seen any evidence that Freoh has learned from that discussion, and if anything it appears that the behavior for which Freoh received a logged warning has increased. The worst offense committed by Gwillhickers here is that they have been far too patient with an editor that has wasted an inordinate amount of other contributors' time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I was the uninvolved closer of the well-attended "Consistant gaslighting behaviour by Freoh" ANI commenced by User:Headbomb mentioned in the OP's opening comment. As I mentioned in part one of my closing statement there, User:Freoh did not then deny being a clean start account. WP:Clean starts usually are provided either for victims of egregious harassment or truly repentant contributors, behavioral offenders who have been blocked or banned for cause, and promised a trusted somebody their poor behavior would change. I'll quote the fourth sentences from both the opening paragraphs of that policy page: "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." "The behavior of the new account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny."
  Normally I'd wish to see a truly odious ANI reporter trouted. In this case, the BOOMERANG may be more appropriate. For my part, I'll concede it's possible I misread that ANI discussion and closed it incorrectly (as merely strongly warning a frequent WP:Civil POV pusher). Based on behavior raised in that ANI and the OP's behavior since the resulting warning, it seems likely the clean start agreement (if any) has been violated many times. In my opinion, this contributor (whatever their current username) has abundantly demonstrated themselves a net negative to the project and should be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for regularly violating the civility policy and the terms of their clean start. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  I did not violate the WP:CLEANSTART policy. I created this account because my previous account exposed some personally identifiable information. WP:SOCKLEGIT indicates that this is a legitimate reason to create a second account. If it would please you, I can privately share my previous account with a checkuser, who can confirm that I did not return to previous discussions. It seems strange to me to accuse someone of sockpuppetry without filing a sockpuppet investigation or even identifying the suspected account in violation. Could you explain (with a diff and a WP:CIVIL quotation) how I violated civility policy?  — Freoh 00:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Having a legitimate reason for creating a second account (no matter that reason) doesn't excuse the contributor from violating the parts of CLEANSTART I quoted directly. I contend the behavior of this new account has told me all I need to know to make an informed decision about the contributor. As to diffs (even ignoring everything linked in the ANI thread) let's just observe two threads on your current talk, shall we? First, we have a thread in which admin Doug Weller tells you he should have blocked you for making personal attacks on Headbomb in the ANI thread. Then we have a thread in which I try to explain that accusing an editor of not getting the point (by misleading piped link in your edit summary) is a personal attack. I'm finished answering questions from this editor. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with BusterD, [add: about clean start issues -- not a sock, however, imo] but I believe the major issue was that Freoh was recently taken to task in an ANI of March by numerous editors for Gaslighting, engaging in never ending argumentative talk while ignoring well reasoned points in a discussion. Shortly thereafter he went to ErnestKrause's Talk page and accused numerous editors of bias. The other day he has accused me of "systemic bias". My last comment to Freoh was on the US Constitution Talk page where for the third time I invited Freoh to make any contributions supported by reliable sources. He ignored that and instead came here and filed this ANI, and now he is accusing multiple editors here for spreading "falsehoods", and intends to come back in 48 hours and address all the statements with the apparent attempt of further compounding everything in the discussions, individually. Along with the ANI of last March, and his behavior on ErnestKrause's Talk page, one only has to look Freoh's Talk page to realize that this pattern of behavior is wide in its range and is persistent. Freoh at virtually any one time is always engaged with editors over the sort of behavior outlined here, and we're supposed to assume in "good faith" that all these editors are somehow wrong .-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Proposal - User:Freoh is banned from Wikipedia for violating WP:Civility and WP:Clean start

• Support as proposer BusterD (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Freoh is a persistent timewaster whos sole purpose appears to be to tendentiously argue on talkpages, wasting the valuable time of other Wikipedia contributors. They are therefore a net negative to the encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support - The misuse of a clean start is sufficient in itself to ban this editor. By allowing the possibility of a clean start, the community extends AGF to the maximum, trusting that the editor will no longer cause the previous disruption, and the encyclopedia will retain a valued contributor in return. Violating a clean start is therefore a very serious offense against the entire en.wiki community, worse than mere vandalism or disruption: it is a gut punch that rewards a magnanimous gesture with total disdain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support a cban for civility and clean start violations, but also more generally for disruptive editing. I think the close of the previous ANI discussion was reasonable at the time, as it gave Freoh an opportunity to reconsider his approach and become a more constructive editor. Unfortunately, Freoh did not take this opportunity. He has engaged in the same behavior that resulted in a formal warning, in some cases continuing the same disputes for which he was warned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:F58A:A000:66B7:FFE6 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support; I remember watching the previous ANI discussion unfold. This pattern has to stop. I'm unsure on the clean start question; we don't know the circumstances of the previous identity. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support regardless of the clean start, Freoh is simply too combative. From their own presentation of diffs, it seems clear that they frequently twist or distort comments from other editors and then follow-up with condescending warnings. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• SUPPORT. I still maintain that this is the same sockpuppet account that I mentioned the last time this user appeared at ANI. Tamzin, perhaps you remember this discussion from last time? He should have been flushed the first time. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do continue to think that it's quite a lot of similarities to Mrbeastmodeallday/Awolf58, but of course if I could prove that to a satisfactory degree I would have just blocked. Either way, I'll push back on the argument below about "unproven allegations of sockpuppetry": regardless of whether Freoh has ever been blocked before, "misusing a clean start" is per se sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. And WP:CLEANSTART expects editors to refrain from disruptive editing or else be considered sockpuppets. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  I endorse Tamzin's views. I'm making a case that Freoh has violated the spirit and the wording of WP:Clean start policy by failing to follow community norms and by demonstrating through their frequent poor behavior in this new account that even a fresh start has not enabled Freoh to learn to act in a way acceptable to the community. I hate to lose an active contributor to Wikipedia over behavioral issues, but Freoh continues to have their wrongdoings pointed out and then they keep acting in this civil POV pushing way, despite the warning at ANI just weeks ago. BusterD (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: It surprises me to see so many people casting aspersions about me in a post about incivility. I do not have time to respond to all of the falsehoods right now, but will try to do so within the next 48 h.  — Freoh 01:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC); fixed 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Freoh has once again chosen to use a misleading piped link ([[WP:CA|casting aspersions]]) in the body of his comment, demonstrating either 1) a lack of competence, or 2) a lack of willingness to verify the consequences of their edit. For the record, the link WP:Casting aspersions recommends using an appropriate forum (like this ANI thread commenced by Freoh) in which to discuss bad user behavior, and the OP's own links to previous discussions provide mountains of evidence himself Freoh refuses to acknowledge, being chock filled with frequent demonstrations of bad faith and civil pov pushing. BusterD (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Demonstrating either 1) a lack of competence, or 2) a lack of willingness to verify the consequences of their edit" The misuse of a link is no justification to descend to the level that you believe he is on. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 11:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yet Freoh is quite an artful link piper, and is frequently decried because of their misuse of misleading piped links, which seems confusing to some and deliberate to others. I came to this subject as the uninvolved closer of the ANI thread linked by Freoh in the OP; I spent an extensive time reading over the evidence presented, then several days just looking through Freoh's contribution history. I didn't do this reading for my personal pleasure, but to better understand the context of that previous gaslighting thread. I had no dog in that hunt. I came to it with no expectation, as neutral as I could. Here we are ten weeks after my closure and warning to Freoh; Freoh is now on ANI gaslighting us in this thread about Gwillhickers's not taking his gaslighting very well. I'm disappointed. That's my opinion, but it's based on my reading of Freoh's behaviors since the warning, which I have followed closely. In his reckless use of a bad piped link, Freoh makes my case for me. BusterD (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It appears to me that if he fires a volley of these links, then someone steps up to feed him the ammunition. Stating that there is a possible "lack of competence" is a bold way of demonstrating that his reasoning is not unfounded. Others have made similar remarks. He says there is uncivility and disparaging remarks, and so we treat such concern by being uncivil? Maybe he is saying such things because people are making negative comments about him. This is not to preach about his innocence, but I am awestruck as to how some can cast such heavy stones while bearing such egregious sins. Please, retract the comment. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  It is not the display of gross incivility that you seem to think it is to question the competence of an editor who continually finds their behavior scrutinized at these noticeboards. Indeed, questions of competence are regularly raised in the course of these discussions. Such questions are undoubtedly unpleasant for the editor being scrutinized, but that does not make them uncivil. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that BusterD has spent a considerable amount of time familiarizing himself with this situation, whereas you have not. I would encourage you to tone down your stern rebukes. Your intentions here are clearly good, but you've let your words run ahead of your knowledge. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  Allow me to list the number of reasons where such a comment is appropriate: Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  A quick overview will show that the list is empty. This is because by the policy of civility: "it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other."

  Furthermore, "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond the same way."

  This doesn't say "One is allowed to question the competence of the editor has a history of being scrutinized." If you @Lepricavark can show me a policy that suggests otherwise, then I will bite my tongue I guess.

  Either way, I don't want to be the person who points out the specks in everyone's eyes or fight other's battles, but I wouldn't have brought it up if not for the that there is merit to Freoh's claims that people are making negative comments about him. This happened on a proposal for banning him for violating WP:CIVIL that came from the person who started the proposal no less. His claims are not baseless. Your seeming agreement that such a comment is acceptable is demonstrative and serves to only prove Freoh's claim that people are indeed casting aspersions.

  Typically, in such a case, this would not be demonstrative of innocence. That is, other people being guilty of the same crime obviously does not make Freoh innocent. However, in this case, it sort of does, since, if people are calling into question his use of the terms and invocation of good faith/civility policies, and then are demonstratively making comments that violate such policies, then it can be shown that his assumptions are not unwarranted, disruptive, or assume a lack of good faith. In other words, he is saying that people are being discourteous, and others are willing to prove it for him.

  There's still a lot that goes into this. For instance, on the ErnestKrause "No Personal Attacks" section, Freoh accused them of making a personal attack. The comment in question from Ernest:

  A closer look at Freoh's edits other than Quantum computers seems to show him as repeatedly presenting himself into a SJW for the various causes which he considers to be his own, and then to spend hours, days, and even weeks grinding down other editors who might not agree with his SJW opinions."[154]

  This isn't a random assumption of someone making personal attacks. Maybe it's reasonable to want to not be called an SJW, which is a negative remark. I find it important to mention that this comment also came on a thread about Freoh's behavior.

  Such comments are indeed undoubtedly uncivil, and it is not such an outlandish or alien expectation to see them not be made, and least of all on a page about the subject's civility being called into question. As I have said before, if anyone believes Freoh -- or anyone, for that matter -- is uncivil, then why venture to deign and fall to the level they believe he is on? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that calling editors SJWs is not helpful and can reasonably be seen as uncivil. Retinalsummer (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose the question lies in whether one considers questions about competence to inherently qualify as attacks. I would contend that they are not inherently attacks, and I am not concerned with persuading you. The snide comment was unhelpful; if you're going to join the ranks of the civility police, you'll have to start holding yourself to a higher standard than that. I do agree that the SJW comment was uncalled-for, but that doesn't really change the clear and obvious problems with Freoh's behavior. They have a battleground mentality, as has been clearly demonstrated yet again below. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Pointless --JBL (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Then would you defend asking someone whether they're inadequate, inept, unqualified, and useless? – .Raven  .talk 22:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Probably not, but can you point me to a diff in which those words were used? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC) If you click that link, you'll see they're synonyms of incompetent. – .Raven  .talk 22:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC) According to a dictionary that has no knowledge of the nuanced meanings terms can come to have within distinct communities such as Wikipedia. I do not think it is appropriate to replace another user's words with synonyms and then to imply that the synonyms are what the user meant. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC) I do not think it is appropriate – I can't believe you just called Raven tasteless irrelevant garbage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC) AN/I thread to follow. [not really] – .Raven  .talk 22:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC) That was a thesaurus, whose other synonyms include incapable; amateur; bungling; unfit. Only amateur there might not be a put-down, and only if used as "not taking pay". The associated dictionary entry for incompetent contains even worse: "4... a mentally deficient person." – .Raven  .talk 22:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Still not interested in synonyms, and I'm even less interested in using a dictionary to tell me what words mean in the specific context of Wikipedia. Discussions of editor competence are a staple of these noticeboards. If you have a problem with the terminology, you're going to be correcting a lot of people. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Apologies if it came across as snide. I meant it to be more humorous than anything else. At any rate, the SJW comment was indeed uncalled for, and since it was pointed out, there is indeed merit to his concerns. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'd be a better mood for humor if it weren't for your insistence on Zapruder-level analysis of critical comments directed towards Freoh while at the same time you wave a dismissive hand at the extensive evidence of that user's own problematic conduct. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Have I been dismissive?

  "This is not to preach about his innocence"

  "That is, other people being guilty of the same crime obviously does not make Freoh innocent." Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 23:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Brief acknowledgment is not the same thing as meaningful engagement. The bulk of your focus has been on the SJW comment and BusterD's use of the word 'incompetent'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think there is a slight misunderstanding. For instance, you see the use of "incompetence" in this context as being not outside the realms of civility. In this same sense, I don't see problematic conduct from Freoh. I see him responding to the conduct of comments and behavior. If you want something that isn't about competence and SJWs, then I did say this in my original post:

  From General Ization in the canvassing link: Sorry, I'm not a party to this debate, and I agree with Freoh it was inappropriate to try to draft me into it based on my contact with that editor concerning a completely different issue in August."

  This isn't any sort of deep analysis, either. This is just clicking on the links provided. I only brought up the comment on competence because, well, it kind of proves the point. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 00:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, it didn't prove any point because the comment on competence was not uncivil. Your obfuscation will help Freoh to get off here with a very light sanction if any, but I'll be shocked if they aren't back at ANI sooner than later. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  My obfuscation? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 01:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  [edit conflict] I should add I deliberately chose to mention WP:Clean start at the beginning of my closure of the gaslighting ANI thread. There's absolutely nothing wrong with fresh starts and the reason for any editor's fresh start is not even our business. As wikipedians we extend fresh start editors, even formerly blocked and banned editors, the same good faith we extend first day contributors. I did not paint Freoh in my closure as a new account in order to tarnish that account, but to put him on notice that his future misbehaviors would be viewed through the fresh start policy lens. My expectation is (again, quoting CLEANSTART): "The behavior of the new account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny." That's the policy. Freoh was notified and warned. Now he's accountable for his actions in that light. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - From my observations, Freoh is not disruptive. He displays a creditable degree of curiosity and eagerness to examine potential biases. Although some might perceive these as real, and others imagined, I see Freoh approaching it with brazen determination, and I would never say he wields force or disruptive tactics. While there is a degree of stubbornness, I do not believe he has ever sought to scourge or lame pages and discussions after a consensus has gone against him. I cannot view every alleged attack Freoh has supposedly made. Even in the material linked that is supposedly against him, I don't see anything stand out as being particularly "disruptive". From General Ization in the canvassing link: Sorry, I'm not a party to this debate, and I agree with Freoh it was inappropriate to try to draft me into it based on my contact with that editor concerning a completely different issue in August." This one example suggests, to me, that his accusation was not bad faith and appears to be founded in some logic or evidence. Again, I cannot view every instance of this, and I am not exactly a judge on this or anything. I cannot in good conscience puff and trumpet to others that Freoh's comments and approach are from malice or ill will, and such a declaration on my part would, I feel, be an unwarranted condemnation. In the other example provided (no personal attacks regarding ErnestKrause), Freoh had left the comment because he was called an SJW and had SJW opinions. Let any charge that Freoh is against the spirit or goodness of the project be carried out with the same verve to the peers who make comments such as these. — Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Maxx, and... I might easily not have !voted at all, but to see "Support"s based on unproven allegations of sockpuppetry and misusing a Clean Start is upsetting in itself. The subject offered to privately provide their prior ID to a CheckUser; surely the conditions of the prior account's closure could also have been confirmed at that time. But none of these "Support" !voters are asking for that confirmation. What to think when people neglect an offer of proof? – .Raven  .talk 04:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Needs to be educated on civil behaviour, not beaten to the ground with a ban. If they're a sock, take them to the board; if there's a clean start violation, let them know that's a problem. We can consider interaction or topic bans though, if that helps. Lourdes 06:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Having first-hand experience with Freoh's behavior, including unsubstantiated claims of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring, I support the proposal per above. Pizzigs (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment My instinct is that I don't wish to see Freoh banned because I think they bring some balance to the POV presented on these articles, and at the least raise some good topics for discussion, but I am quite dismayed that Freoh has not taken the opportunity of the last ANI to tone things down, drop the stick, and avoid generating so much friction and conflict. When a formal warning is issued, the thing to do is avoid the conflicts that lead to it. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose if the CLEANSTART was to avoid sharing the user's personally identifiable information, it is obviously and clearly irrelevant here. Accusing a CLEANSTART account of sockpuppeteering purely because they are a CLEANSTART account and without any knowledge of the underlying case smells of prejudice to me. No opinion on the rest of the case. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I have not accused Freoh of sockpuppetry. Freoh used the terminology himself, not me. I have pointed out that Freoh is a clean start account and he is not following those rules. Wikipedia has given Freoh an enormous grant of good faith by offering them this restart. Freoh is not keeping their end of the bargain. BusterD (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @BusterD: Above you "endorse[d] Tamzin's views" which DID accuse Freoh of WP:SOCK. If you do not join in that, perhaps you might amend your comment to say so? – .Raven  .talk 15:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  You have misread Tamzin, an editor whose reputation for boldness, agency and good judgement is well-founded. She says: '"misusing a clean start" is per se sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. And WP:CLEANSTART expects editors to refrain from disruptive editing or else be considered sockpuppets.' I subscribe wholeheartedly to those views. But as to accusation she writes: if I could prove that to a satisfactory degree I would have just blocked. Tamzin wouldn't merely accuse. If they have sufficient evidence they might just block. So you've clearly misread Tamzin's actual words. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  @BusterD: I suppose it's a bit of semantics. I don't think there's enough evidence of "outright sockpuppetry" to justify a block, but I do think there's very straightforward evidence of a violation of a different part of the sockpuppetry policy, namely misuse of a clean start. Violating that provision is still sockpuppetry, just not the sort that first comes to mind when one hears that phrase. It's no different from when we say an editor may not have engaged in outright socking but then still block them for meatpuppetry (a kind of sockpuppetry). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  If the previous account was closed due to a release of PI – as stated, with an offer to verify prior ID (which could also verify the conditions of closure) – then "misuse of clean start" isn't an issue, because it wasn't due to misbehavior... and isn't any kind of "puppetry". So it's really odd that we keep having this brought up, without anyone taking up Freoh's offer. – .Raven  .talk 20:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support for lack of civility, disruptive editing and generally NOTHERE. This user's combative relationship with other editors is made plain on their talk page, which features an autobiography mostly made up of spats with others that this user is clearly proud of. There has been no change since the ANI and zero sign that they are willing to change. Retinalsummer (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I can understand and appreciate many users' concerns about a WP:CLEANSTART violation but I believe .Raven brought up an important point about such discussion. Freoh states that their clean start was due to Personally Identifiable Information cropping up adjacent their original account. Without a checkuser to confirm or reject this claim, or even someone claiming they recognize this user from their behavior, We have no reason to not believe them per AGF. I think most Support !votes so far are not completely predicated on the clean start violation, but it has regardless affected this proposal. Personally, I would suggest an understanding that a clean start for PII concerns is functionally a different mechanic than a clean start to distance oneself from past behavior. The latter is meant to distance one's present editing from their previous work/reputation on WP, while the former is distancing one's present editing from their real life identity, something which should never matter on WP, COI aside. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, there just seems too much confusion about the good faith clean start, which may or may not actually be a formal clean start but a volunteer action. Maybe an admin can work with Freoh to clear that up (especially since it's given as half the reason for this indef nom). Aside from that, Freoh seems to walk the line with civility issues but, although I don't follow their edits, might be improving over time and as long as the improvement is in the right direction then that's a personal judgement (remember, indef is serious, so the reasons to apply it seem like they should also be very serious without a chance of a light at the end of the tunnel). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment : It seems we're getting a bit side tracked here. One editor introduced the idea of a sock, and I don't think that's the case with Freoh, even though there may be other Fresh-Start issues - I can't say off hand. I was the victim of sock vandalism in several cases (as Tamzin can attest to), and hiding behind a sock doesn't seem to be Freoh's style. The real issue, imo, is the prolonged gaslighting, refusal to drop the stick, and compound accusations to multiple editors time and again, esp after being warned at the ANI of last March. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Gwillhickers. My comment was not about a sock but about Freoh's offer to prove his change of name was legit, which, please notice, is half the accusation against him. Comments below indicate that nobody has yet to take him up on this reasonable offer. Maybe in the light of that you can cut your suggested ban to 16 days, because half of the question may be inaccurate and lots of editors have based their support comments partly on that. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the sock part of it. Only a couple of editors put that on the table. As I've indicated I'm not suspecting anything to do with sock issues, and from what's been posted here, neither are most folks, including BusterD.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think Freoh has done any specific thing that warrants the "capital punishment" of expulsion. While their behavior in prolonging arguments tends to create a toxic environment for other editors, a shorter ban, 48-72 hours, for example, seems more appropriate. It would also serve as a warning to Freoh to "put down the stick", as Gwillhickers expressed it, rather than going on interminably in content disputes. Should they fail to heed the warning and we find ourselves back here in a few months, then the case will be "open and shut", that is, much easier for other editors to decide. My advice to all, including both Freoh and Gwillhickers, is to try to think about "the other guy" once in a while and with that, do whatever you can to make Wikipedia a better place to be. Allreet (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree, given the ANI warning of march, that a temporary block would be more in order. An Indef is usually meted out for sock issues, serious threats, repeated vandalism and such, which is why I abstained from casting a Support vote, though admittedly, yesterday I came close to doing so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to support a second formal warning, maybe just a simple one like "Freoh is admonished again to tone it down, dial it back, and when appropriate, to drop the stick." —DIYeditor (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Freoh already got the formal warning. Failure to sanction obvious violations merely communicates that the warnings are toothless. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I admit I have been avoiding looking into details of this dispute since the warning because it simply became annoying to me, which is why I left my !vote above at a "comment". Now I feel obligated to look more closely at it. I can see what you mean about ignorance of a formal warning being the last straw before a block. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Enough is enough, The fact they edit talkpages more than contributing to the project tells me all I need to know about this user. Nothing of value will be lost by blocking them. –Davey2010^Talk 00:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  People whose edits are disputed, but do NOT discuss them on talkpages, are called edit-warriors, a deprecated behavior. Instead Freoh engages in article-talkpage discussions slightly more often than editing articles (39% vs 36%), and this is blockable behavior? Wow. – .Raven  .talk 02:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No one has asserted that Freoh is an edit warrior, only that this individual has repeatedly been the subject of gaslighting and IDHT behavior, here at ANI and elsewhere, compounded by incessant accusations to many editors on all sorts of Talk pages. As Davey2010 points out, the amount of edits on Talk pages compared to constructive contributions to articles is glaring, and is no coincidence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm seeing "incessant accusations" right here, unproven accusations, by other people, of misuse of a clean start, and sockpuppetry – despite Freoh's offer to have his prior ID confirmed (and with that the opportunity to confirm the conditions of its closing), an offer which nobody is even trying to take up. If this sort of treatment had been directed at me, I'd be complaining about it too, and I expect the stress would cut down on my editing time. Does no-one take responsibility for their effects on others any more? – .Raven  .talk 03:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure that this subthread, which was opened less than 30 hours ago, has probably caused Freoh some measure of stress. But I don't really see how that explains this editor's editing patterns over the preceding 10 months. Mind you, I don't agree that a high rate of talk page participation is inherently problematic, but in this case the evidence has shown a pattern of battleground editing. If you can get an admin to confirm Freoh's claims regarding their previous account, that's well and good, but it won't negate the behavioral issues which IMO are sufficient cause for the community to part ways with this individual. By the way, with regard to that parting shot in your closing sentence, I'm not seeing any indication that Freoh has taken responsibility for the effects of their battleground behavior. You appear to be applying a harmful double standard by minimizing Freoh's own ABF approach to editing while rebuking those editors who are justifiably skeptical about the validity of this cleanstart. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't wrap my head around the fact that several editors are ignoring (if not outright denying) a documented history of disruption because they got caught up on some wording about how clean start editors are expected to hold themselves to a high standard. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"unproven accusations"?? – that everyone is just spinning matters out of thin air? The issue, as I've clearly indicated above, is not about sock issues, at least with almost all of us, but prolonged gaslighting, wp:IDHT, and indeed, accusations. The record(s) speaks for itself. Suggest you look into matters more thoroughly. Thanx . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

> "... prolonged gaslighting, wp:IDHT, and indeed, accusations." – What I see at Talk:Constitution..., for instance, is a sad show of two sides talking past each other. Freoh looks at the influence of the wealthy and powerful on and in state legislatures, which chose the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and how the Senate (with 3x longer terms than the House, and originally chosen by, thus answerable to, state legislatures, not direct popular elections) represented and embodied privilege; and he pertinently wonders which "We the People" did this structure chiefly serve... especially given who was excluded from the newly guaranteed rights and liberties. He's met with insistence that the idealistic language of the document answers him, and that he must be anti-American for doubting it. Gaslighting, WP:IDHT, and accusations, indeed. The ad-hominem fallacy, I should add. – .Raven  .talk 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Raven, Why are you posting on what seems to be every ANI/AN thread here? I had to close this thread yesterday because you were bludgeoning it to death and you're now here doing the exact same thing. There is more to Wikipedia than AN/ANI in case you didn't know. Go do something productive and worthwhile with your time. –Davey2010^Talk 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There is always an orchard to judge except one's own. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

What??? EEng 17:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support a temporary block of at least 30 days, over endless gaslighting mostly. Another warning, on top of the last ANI warning, would be sort of senseless and sends the wrong message to other editors. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support block of 72 hours - 30 days such as the closer may find consensus for, but I do not yet find reason for a community ban. If this comes up again, at that time I would say third strike and you're out. What swayed me from merely "comment" to supporting a block was a quick investigation into the allegations about race. Gwillhickers, while I don't completely agree with his position, clearly did not make any uncivil accusations about racism, but instead merely observed what I also observe, that Freoh seemed to be making content decisions based purely on racial categories, in a case of the desired conclusion seeming to drive the selection of evidence and citations, rather than the reverse. I think Freoh actually has some good points (which makes it more difficult to support a block), but to just blankly deny that they are making some assertions based on race is disingenuous, and to try to spin that 180 degrees into faulting Gwillhickers is problematic. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose. See § Response from Freoh.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block (E.C.). First, I do want to make clear that I think this original posting probably should never have been posted here. I think the edits Freoh has presented to show a degree of incivility, but nothing near egregious enough to warrant action here. Sometimes talk pages get contentious and editors get frustrated. I also think some of the discussions mentioned have involved weirdly forumy tangents, but that's also to be expected. Relatedly, I also think Freoh has been a bit uncivil and also has shown a hypersensitivity (and propensity to come back with strong reactions) that seems to exacerbate that issue, but snappiness should be sympathetically seen in the context of the discussion. As both the diffs provided and as Maxxhiato pointed out above, there is relevant context here.
  Second, I'm somewhat alarmed at how quickly people have embraced the indef ban here. I consider myself a decently article-focused editor, but my main space edits also constitute a up a minority of my contributions (partially because I've worked on a few RFCs and a particularly contentious article where discussion is usually required for changes). I also think the WP:CLEANSTART accusations are a bit weak. There's no real evidence that Freoh created a new account to "evade scrutiny". Frankly, the precise nature of the CLEANSTART accusations are a bit difficult to understand: Is it really being contended that the "expectat[ion]" line imposes the threat of an indef block for any violation of community guidelines? I don't actually think that follows from the policy, and, moreover, I think it'd be bad policy: in a discussion full of uncivil remarks, one editor, who created a new account for legitimate reasons, can face an indef ban for their particular uncivil comments?
  I can understand how Freoh's discussion pattern might be frustrating to some editors—one user expressed frustration that Freoh had made several proposals that ended in no consensus [155]. But while divisive proposals might be bigger time drains than proposals in which every editor disagrees with the proposer, but I think the fact that other editors agree with the proposer actually suggests that further conversation should be had. From what I've seen, Freoh is a good-faith editor whose input should be valued even if it's rarely followed.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block, minimum 30 day block. The last ANI thread provided Freoh with a chance to modify his behavior, and he apparently did not take it. Enough is enough. Display name 99 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I lack the time and inclination to wade through the laundry list of complaints, but I have become involuntarily familiar with Freoh's behavior thanks to their frequent-flyer status at the admin noticeboards and other prominent discussion boards. This is not a good thing; there aren't many editors with 1700 edits whose names I recognize despite not sharing areas of editing. I suggest that regardless of the outcome of this thread, they take the criticism here seriously, engage in self-reflection, and attempt to moderate their behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support a block of some kind -- the only interactions I've had with Freoh were tedious and seemed to result in constant failures to get the point; it almost felt like I was arguing with someone who was sealioning. In lieu of a total block, perhaps an indefinite topic ban on anything related to America could suffice for now. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't use the word explicitly, but sealioning is exactly what came to mind for me observing Freoh's conduct. I think a topic ban on the U.S. would be a reasonable second choice after an indef, as it covers most (though not all) of Freoh's tendentious activity. And I emphasize that it would need to be U.S. broadly rather than AMPOL, because a lot of this is relation to earlier U.S. history. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am conflicted about a TBAN. The problem I have with it is that Freoh, even if problematic behaviorally in specific areas, is also bringing a perspective that may be underrepresented on Wikipedia. I would like to see Freoh (him?) and any other editor branch out from certain "preferred" topic areas that to my mind may be excessively focused on, but I think we should address Freoh's concerns about systemic bias. Then again, the discussions do seem to be lingering for quite a while. I have not kept up with them because I found the entire thing tedious to be honest. All that said, BusterD pointed out that a TBAN was the sanction I had originally suggested myself if the warning was not heeded. I think it would be unfortunate if that had to happen. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  {{pronoun|Freoh|sub[/obj/pos]}}: he / him / his. – .Raven  .talk 00:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: While I haven't read the diffs in detail, the WP:CLEANSTART accusation is so obviously bogus it makes me very suspicious of the other ones. And any indef would be based on the CLEANSTART accusations, as I don't think anyone alleges that Freoh has crossed a bright line regarding incivility. Loki (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Had you "read the diffs in detail", you'd know that Freoh had previously declared the account as a clean start, and that his editing since then has violated the "Editing after a clean start" section of WP:CLEANSTART. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Having read and re-read that section multiple times, I must note: the warning "If you do not make positive changes in your behavior, you may be recognized and held accountable for the actions of your past account(s)" does not threaten punitive charges for ᴄʟᴇᴀɴsᴛᴀʀᴛed accounts' misbehavior over and above what other users face for the same misbehavior – it purely warns that continuation of the old account's behavior may expose the connection, negating the point of the ᴄʟᴇᴀɴsᴛᴀʀᴛ. Likewise the section warns: "... returning to a favorite topic after a clean start carries a substantial risk that other editors will recognize and connect the old and new accounts. This can result in arguments, further loss of reputation, and blocks or bans, even if your behavior while using the new account was entirely proper. For this reason, it is best to completely avoid old topic areas after a clean start." 'Returning to a favorite topic' is of course not an actual offense ("violation") in itself. – .Raven  .talk 00:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly what Raven said. The idea that Freoh has committed any sort of violation of WP:CLEANSTART is a blatant misreading of WP:CLEANSTART. Loki (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have to say, scanning through this thread, this proposal doesn't seem to follow from what's above. Presumably other people have more experience with Freoh than I do, but what drew my attention was the WP:CLEANSTART stuff. If someone abandons an old account because it revealed personal information and accidentally calls that move a "clean start", that doesn't actually make it a WP:CLEANSTART. The entire premise of WP:CLEANSTART is that there's some behavior, arguments, etc. that you don't want to be associated with anymore. In those cases, yes, it's not appropriate to do so if you're just going to resume the same activity. This isn't a clean start, though -- it's just a rename without the privacy-inhibiting paper trail. I don't think we should be penalizing people for this sort of rename, even if they step into a gotcha by calling it a clean start. I've looked at the opening complaint and a few of the diffs and would probably just suggest no action on this whole thing (on the stuff at the top, calling someone a "SJW" is obnoxious and says more about the person using the term than the target, but doesn't rise to the level of action, and that's about the worst diff in the bunch -- not seeing nearly sufficient evidence of a problem). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see anything in the above that merits such a severe measure. I don't have knowledge from history but just read the constitution talk page and don't see anything severe. I even saw somethng backwards in the above arguments. Whenever there is contention it is supposed to get handled in talk, yet they are getting derided for doing just that (proportion of talk to editing in the article.) The OP complaint did seem a bit ginned up and I'm firmly aginst all-too-common weaponizing of our systems. And they do seem a bit too combative overall. Some evolution/course correction to be less combative is probably needed. But I see nothing that merits such a severe measure. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support for violations of WP:CLEANSTART, and I don't exactly know what to call the behaviour issue, but a mix of WP:WALRUS/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS/WP:NOTHERE is at play. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment : — The above proposal by BusterD should have been more inclusive, as there seems to be too much focus on Clean Start which tends to ignore the idea of prolonged gaslighting on multiple Talk pages, where many editors have been routinely accused of several types of bias, bad faith, making personal attacks, etc, (examles with links posted above) and in the process repeated arguments and WP:IDHT were commoin place, which has become an issue, with or without the Clean Start issue. Now he is more than suggesting that other editors are simply bullying him, further compounding matters. While an Indef ban is excessive, another formal warning would otoh be dismissing the accounts made by many editors over a good number of months, where this sort of behavior has already been brought to Freoh's attention in an ANI of March -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it should have focused on the disruptive editing rather than the clean start issues. But I don't know if it would have made a difference. The previous ANI thread was linked to several times, and Freoh's talk page and contributions are not difficult to access. For whatever reason, there are a handful of users that are totally fine with Freoh's fringe POV being forced through months-long arguments, as well as the frivolous warnings and gaslighting that occur any time someone disagrees with him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose ban, I don't see how Freoh violated the clean start policy or made personal attacks, and the proposed sanction is overly severe for what they have done wrong. Hatman31 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose ban: the allegations for violation of a clean start are obviously unfounded. And Freoh is no less civil than other editors, as demonstrated by statements made against Freoh in this discussion (per observations by .Raven). Larataguera (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Response from Freoh

First, some apologies:

• BusterD, you are correct that I misremembered the shortcut for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. My daughter started crying just as I finished the post, which distracted me. In my rush, I did not double-check the link. I also forgot to sign that post until a few minutes later, after my daughter had partially calmed down. I apologize for misleading you.
• Gwillhickers, I am sorry that my most recent user page warning was more accusatory than it should have been. In retrospect, I realize that I was not clear about what frustrated me, so I will try to explain (more politely) here. The way that I see it, there are two different kinds of bias on Wikipedia: intentional (bad-faith) editor bias in opposition to Wikipedia's second pillar, and unintentional (good faith) editor bias that is to some extent unavoidable. By suggesting that you expand the Influences section to include non-white examples, I was trying to point out what I saw as an unintentional bias that skewed the page toward white people. It is not that I want to include others on the basis that they are non-white; it is that I felt your proposal was (unintentionally) unbalanced. When you suggested that I wanted to include other such political philosophers simply on the basis that they may be "non white", I interpreted that as an accusation of intentional race-based bias on my part. I see now that there are multiple ways to interpret these comments, and I should have aired my grievances more politely.

A few points on my editing philosophy:

• There is a difference between being combative and confrontational. Wikipedia policy forbids the former, but it encourages the latter. I agree that I am more confrontational than most editors, and I am not afraid to confront others when I feel that their behavior is out of line. Ultimately, I am not doing this to pester others, but to encourage others to strengthen Wikipedia's fourth pillar.
• There is a difference between disruption and disagreement. Wikipedia policy forbids the former, but it encourages discussion when the latter arises. I have focused my efforts on areas which I believe could better adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policies, pages where I disagree with the existing content. As far as I know, this is not forbidden, and this focus falls within the scope of the WP:CSB WikiProject. I am not trying to be a pain, but I do end up in more content disputes as a result of my focus. I suspect that ownership tendencies play a role in the way that other editors defend their content (but I do not accuse anyone of egregious ownership behavior).
• Every editor is biased, and everyone is welcome to share their opinions about content, as long as they follow the policies and guidelines. As I explained on ErnestKrause's talk page, I did not mean to accuse all of those editors of bias; rather, I intended to point out that ErnestKrause's selection of notified editors was significantly skewed toward those who had previously expressed favorable opinions. This seems like a clear-cut case of votestacking, and I still do not understand why people are more upset with my warning than the canvassing itself.
• I agree with GabberFlasted that a user who had a clean start because of personally identifiable information should not be penalized for it.
• "Wasting time" is far too subjective to be a blockable offense on its own.

I feel that my behavior has changed since the previous AN/I thread.

• I have not edit-warred at all.
• Looking at the XTools breakdown, it should be clear that I am not the only one prolonging the discussion at Talk:Constitution of the United States.
• I reached out to BusterD for help, hoping that I could better understand the line between an "uphill battle" and a discussion that is officially dead. Ironically, I had to drop the stick in that discussion, as BusterD seemed to lose interest in actually explaining this distinction, pointing instead to my lack of support among AN/I participants as his evidence of disruption. I would still appreciate someone clarifying the official policy surrounding this distinction.

Several people have cast aspersions against me in this discussion, and I worry that people responding to the survey may change their minds in light of the facts:

• When Freoh is taken to task over various issues he typically resorts to accusing others of "personal attacks", "canvasing", nationalistic bias", "systemic bias", lacking good faith, etc. These user warnings are not my resort. They are real concerns, and I send these warnings for incivility even when my civility is not in question.
• Freoh has had every opportunity to include other perspectives in the article if they are cited in reliable sources, and has never even attempted it. False.
• Freoh mentions an ANI discussion in which he feels he was mistreated. That discussion was started because of his penchant to misrepresent interactions and to "warn" editors for things that they have not done. I am not aware of any warnings I have sent without good cause, except for the one mentioned earlier, which was unintentional and I retract.
• Freoh was recently taken to task in an ANI of March by numerous editors for Gaslighting, engaging in never ending argumentative talk while ignoring well reasoned points in a discussion. I have never gaslit anyone, and I have not ignored any well-reasoned points.
• ... he should have blocked you for making personal attacks on Headbomb in the ANI thread. I made no personal attacks on Headbomb.
• ... misleading piped link in your edit summary ... The edit summary had no piped link.
• ... for the third time I invited Freoh to make any contributions supported by reliable sources. No, you did not. You asked me to present reliable sources after I had already presented two.
• Freoh is a persistent timewaster whos sole purpose appears to be to tendentiously argue on talkpages, wasting the valuable time of other Wikipedia contributors. No, my main purpose is to help articles adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and tendentious editors end up wasting my time in this process.
• The misuse of a clean start is sufficient in itself to ban this editor. I did not misuse a clean start.
• Unfortunately, Freoh did not take this opportunity. I did, as explained earlier.
• ... they frequently twist or distort comments from other editors. If I did this, it was accidental, and if you feel that someone's meaning was distorted, then let me know so that I can fix it.
• ... this is the same sockpuppet account that I mentioned the last time this user appeared at ANI. No, I am not.
• ... the OP's own links to previous discussions provide mountains of evidence himself Freoh refuses to acknowledge, being chock filled with frequent demonstrations of bad faith and civil pov pushing. No, I have always acted in good faith, and the only POV that I push is a neutral POV.
• ... it is quite apparent that BusterD has spent a considerable amount of time familiarizing himself with this situation. No, they have not. As mentioned earlier, when I asked them about the specifics, it seemed they were basing their decision mainly on the comments of others.
• ... unsubstantiated claims of personal attacks, incivility and edit warring ... All of the warnings I left at your page were accompanied by diffs that substantiated the claims.
• ... spats with others that this user is clearly proud of ... I am not proud of these spats. You are the first person who has taken offense to my user page, and I just deleted it.
• Freoh seemed to be making content decisions based purely on racial categories. No, I was not. I was making content decisions based on reliable sources.

Some things that I will work on:

• I will spend more time editing articles and less time on talk pages.
• I will tone down any future user warnings so that they are friendlier, more specific, and more helpful.
• I will be more proactive in starting RfCs when it is clear that a discussion is not going anywhere.
• I am open to other questions that you would like me to answer.

TL;DR: I am not perfect, but I am improving, and far too many people here are casting aspersions against me.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It was the best of apologies, it was the worst of apologies. While I sincerely appreciate that you have apologised, the fact that you immediately followed those apologies with a laundry list of grievances and a frivolous attack on BusterB (that you only withdrew because no one supported it) suggests to me that you are not truly willing to change. The main issue for me is that you have a combative relationship with other editors, and your response does little to show that you are either willing or able to move beyond this kind of hostile interaction. I noted above that I think you have been subject to some mild incivility, which is of course wrong, but that does not excuse your behaviour. I suspect that the likely outcome will be a temporary ban, and I sincerely hope that you will prove me wrong and learn to participate in this project with the spirit of cooperation. Retinalsummer (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I opposed the ban as overkill. But a common complaint has been that you are generally too combative. IMHO for your own enjoyment in Wikipedia as well as what happens in venues like this it would good to genuinely acknowledge this and outline a genuine shift in this area. Second, I don't know the overall background but from a review of the constitution talk page, IMHO you were really seriously bludgeoning it and IMO acknowledging that specific issue for the same reasons and benefits and outlining a general change there would be a good thing. Finally, at the constitution page IMHO you put in an immense amount of effort to get in wording which IMHO was simply more negative sounding that really didn't add information. Of course it could be argued that there is nothing wiki-wrong with that but if this is representative, perhaps outlining a shift in efforts farther away from value-laden additions (which IMO will always be more contentious and less useful) would be good thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Generally agree with North8000 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

North8000, I hope that friendlier user warnings will help others feel less attacked. I do admit that I was commenting a lot at Talk:Constitution of the United States [156], but I think that I have changed significantly on that issue since the last AN/I thread [157]. Most of my effort at that page was spent trying to remove (or at least qualify) Allreet's value-laden additions about the people, so I am not sure what you mean about your last point.  — Freoh 11:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It was a sidebar after my two main points and I also added the disclaimer "Of course it could be argued that there is nothing wiki-wrong with that" and I'm afraid that I might take this too far afield by getting into what would be a content discussion here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is what article talk pages are for. --JBL (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
. . . Freoh, re this statement: I was trying to point out what I saw as an unintentional bias that skewed the page toward white people. It is not that I want to include others "on the basis" that they are non-white; it is that I felt your proposal was (unintentionally) unbalanced. This idea has already been well explained for you, here, here, and here. Your concern that the page is "skewed" is in effect saying the account is crooked, misleading, highly questionable or even untrue. It's like you're complaining that an account about the formation of the Japanese government focuses on the Japanese. If there were various "non-white" philosophers who were highly influential during the founding, and we were ignoring them, intentionally or otherwise, you would have something of a case, but there are none, let alone any that would compare to Montesquieu, Locke and other such political philosophers. As such, your complaint suggests that you have more than a passing bias against whites. I'm sorry, but it seems you are only giving more credence to the concerns over the repetitious Gaslighting and WP:IDHT. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: > "If there were various "non-white" philosophers who were highly influential during the founding, and we were ignoring them, intentionally or otherwise, you would have something of a case, but there are none..." On October 4, 1988, during the 100th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 331 (H.Con.Res. 331) on to the Senate by a vote of 408–8. Then, on October 21, 1988, the Senate approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 76 (S.Con.Res.76, identical to H.Con.Res. 331), by unanimous voice vote. The joint resolution reads, in part: Whereas the original framers of the Constitution, including, most notably, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, are known to have greatly admired the concepts of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy; Whereas the confederation of the original Thirteen Colonies into one republic was influenced by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself… RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (THE SENATE CONCURRING), That — (1) the Congress, on the occasion of the two hundredth anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution, acknowledges the contribution made by the Iroquois Confederacy and other Indian Nations to the formation and development of the United States;… You were saying? – .Raven  .talk 00:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC) > "Your concern that the page is "skewed" is in effect saying the account is crooked, misleading, highly questionable or even untrue." Fun with synonyms! I know this game! But Merriam-Webster defines "skewed" as: 1) distorted from a true value or symmetrical form     problematic polling methods that resulted in skewed data 2) deviating from what is normal, direct, or accurate     The treatment will later attempt to correct the anorexic's skewed [=distorted] perceptions about her body. Both clearly allowing for inadvertent, unintended distortion. – .Raven  .talk 01:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)e Thanks for your take on word usage, but you might want to refer to Webster. The issue is over the founding era, not 200 years later, and who was of major influence. No "game". Yes, Franklin and others were impressed by the Iroquois Confederacy, but as to what extent this factored into the drafting of the actual Constitution is a matter of opinion and is often contested by a number of historians and archeologists, since the Iroquois Confederation was largely in the form of oral history and largely focused on keeping the peace with other tribes, not so much a form of government for the Indian peoples. The notion of Iroquois influence assumes that the ideals of independence, separation of powers, already in place with a Parliament and the King 100s of years ago, unalienable rights and such were solely the idea of the Iroquois is unfounded, given the history, and is only supported by coincidental and circumstantial evidence at best, misinterpreted The philosophers mentioned were frequently referred to by Madison, Franklin and others before and during the Constitutional Convention -- no mention of the Iroquois Confederacy. I've no issue with mentioning the Iroquois, as I've already covered in the Constitution article, but compared to the philosophers mentioned, covered by numerous reliable sources, there is no such individual among the Iroquois that is notable and so covered by reliable sources. Just general accounts that assumes much. There is also historical opinion that the Iroquois developed many of their ideas from their association with enlightenment thinkers and the founders. In any case, all this is getting off point. Freoh complained that the account "skewed" things towards white individuals, as if this was some sort of gross error. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC) To look into this further, start with Exemplars of Taking Liberties: The Iroquois Influence Thesis and the Problem of Evidence, Philip Levy, 1996. JSTOR 2947206 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC) @Gwillhickers: > "... the Iroquois Confederation was largely in the form of oral history..." – To say that Confederacy (also called the Haudenosaunee, or the Five Nations, then the Six Nations) – which still exists – is "largely in the form of oral [or any other kind of] history" is as meaningless as saying the USA is largely in the form of [any kind of] history. There are histories about them, but they themselves are not histories of any form. This appears to be a case of category error. > "... and largely focused on keeping the peace with other tribes, not so much a form of government for the Indian peoples" – You may be thinking of the Great Law of Peace, which did and does keep peace between the member Nations, but also set the structure of their shared government... not that of "the Indian peoples" in general. > "compared to the philosophers mentioned,... there is no such individual among the Iroquois that is notable" – I suppose then we must delete the articles about such Haudenosaunee individuals as the Great Peacemaker, Jigonhsasee, and Hiawatha; or (some 5½ centuries later) Canasatego, who in 1744 told colonists "We have one thing further to say, and that is We heartily recommend Union and a Good Agreement between you our Brethren. Never disagree, but preserve a strict Friendship for one another, and thereby you as well as we will become the Stronger. Our wise Forefathers established Union and Amity between the Five Nations; this has made us formidable, this has given us great weight and Authority with our Neighboring Nations. We are a powerful confederacy, and, by your observing the same Methods our wise Forefathers have taken, you will acquire fresh Strength and Power; therefore, whatever befalls you, never fall out with one another." Benjamin Franklin's 1754 Albany Plan, like the Iroquois government, even featured a "Grand Council". > "There is also historical opinion that the Iroquois developed many of their ideas from their association with enlightenment thinkers and the founders." – Were they time travelers, then? The Great Law of Peace was composed, and those three co-founders of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy lived, in the 1100's, before the Enlightenment or the Magna Carta or Columbus's voyages. > "Freoh complained that the account 'skewed' things towards white individuals, as if this was some sort of gross error." – You mean skewing things toward white individuals is entirely correct? – .Raven  .talk 07:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks for trying to cover one side of the story, but I haven't asserted anything the sources haven't covered, and stopped reading after the first few sentences. This is turning into a wall of text discussion. Freoh's focus was finding "non-white" influences, and as of yet has not produced any individual that compares to the political philosophers mentioned, and thus far all we have are general and accounts about the Iroquois from which much speculation has been based, which continues to be quite debatable among historians to say the least – nothing in the way of uncontested established facts in terms of what significantly influenced the founders, and to assert anything otherwise would be skewing the account. If you'd like to continue with this topic in depth it should occur in a different forum, not in the middle of an ANI. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC) > "stopped reading after the first few sentences" – How utterly convincing: IDIDNTREADTHAT. – .Raven  .talk 17:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This is a content discussion and I don't see the direct relevance to behavioral issues. Please take it to the relevant article talk pages. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Note that the above 00:32 10 June 2023 response by Gwillhickers, entirely a content dispute, was the first in a subthread hatted by administrator JayBeeEll – but then Gwillhickers moved his own comment (alone) out from under the hat, breaking the subthread. In case anyone still wonders how well Gwillhickers follows WP protocol.... – .Raven  .talk 00:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC) This is coming from someone who ignored WP protocol with a wall of text content dispute, appropriately hatted by JBL, as he did with another of Raven's comments -- nothing to do with behavioral issues.. Raven, please sign you comments. I was addressing Freoh's "non-white" concerns -- it wasn't a lengthy take on content, per you apparent attempt to sidetrack the issue. Please don't further compound the ANI with another lengthy message any more than you have already. If you have any further comments about me, please talk them to my Talk page. This is not the forum to go on about such matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC) > "appropriately hatted by JBL" – JBL hatted the subthread starting with your 00:32 10 June 2023 content dispute response; his edit-comment was "hat off-topic for this forum", his hat-header was and remains "This is what article talk pages are for." You moved your own comment out from under that hat, but call a direct rebuttal to your claims an "apparent attempt to sidetrack the issue", and say "This is not the forum..." – well, then, it wasn't the forum for you to make those claims, either. Or do content disputes belong here only if you make them? – .Raven  .talk 08:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Proposal: BusterD boomerang

This discussion has been closed by Freoh. Please do not modify it.
This is an attempt to avoid future disruption, not a revenge filing, but I will withdraw it per WP:SNOW.  — Freoh 22:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
BusterD has demonstrated an inability to assume good faith. When I asked them for help, they indicated that they were basing their decisions on comments made about me, and was unwilling to consider the possibility that these other editors were misrepresenting me. They threatened me with a block purely for overlinking in talk page discussions, and less than 35% of their edits are to mainspace, so I think that a six-month topic ban from WP:AN/I would help BusterD contribute to the project in more helpful ways.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Yes this is definitely a good way to show you are not combative. --JBL (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC) References  Support as proposer.  — Freoh 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose — massive wall of text, in addition to the fact that this proposal makes little sense. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose: I do think BusterD has been a bit quick to jump to conclusions here, but if that behavior is deserving of a block, then I'm not sure how the proposer's behavior does not. To be clear, I think neither should be blocked. Also, I have to add: above, I mentioned that Freoh seemed to have a hypersensitivity and, more serious, a propensity to retaliate in uncivil ways. Those traits aren't helpful. Unfortunately, I think this proposal is an example of those traits in action.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose Reading the diff for "threatened me with a block purely for overlinking in talk page discussions" shows a disturbing misrepresentation of BusterD's comment. Schazjmd (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Oppose the tide seemed to be turning against a cban for Freoh, but I suspect they may have just turned it back. This revenge filing was ill-advised to say the least. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Ahem. Not just gaslighting anymore, we see. Thank you, User:Freoh, for your BOLD. Bold is a great starting place for a wikipedian. Unfortunately CIVIL is a pillar. Allow me to wax BOLD: If you can't bring civil to your game, you can't play here. I should offer User:Freoh and the community an apology. It might have been wise if I'd merely proposed what DIYeditor offered during the gaslighting discussion: if this warning is not heeded, a narrowly construed topic ban from history, human civilization, politics, government and science be put in place. DIYeditor — (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC) In any event, we still need to deal with this user, not just decline to sanction them. I'm perceived to be involved now. So I'll let the community wrap this up. BusterD (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll deign to add: we might need to start asking the block and ban question to admin candidates again because a number of editors in the discussion above are using the terms interchangeably. If I wanted to block Freoh, I've already seen sufficient bad behavior and presented adequate evidence to defend myself from bad block charges. Any admin could block. Anytime. I have stubbornly chosen not to block. I have instead proposed the community sanction with some form of ban. A ban derives from consensus, not one rogue sysop. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Gaslighting is a serious offense, one that I have already denied, and one that Levivich has described as an aspersion. I have asked you to provide a diff where I was uncivil, and the only one that you gave was because I used the WP:LISTEN shortcut. If it is a ban-worthy offense to use Avanu's shortcut, then you should discuss that at Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing, rather than trying to ban its first-time users. I am feeling bullied, and I do not understand why you continue to be so disrespectful.  — Freoh 21:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's understandable and unfortunate that you feel bullied. I am surprised more editors haven't come to your defense to be honest, both in the articles and at ANI. As I said above, I am also dismayed that you did not take the opportunity of the formal warning to chill out a little, maybe branch out into some other discussions or topic areas. Having systemic bias addressed is a legitimate cause, but I think your approach is alienating a lot of people. To try to turn this around on BusterD was peculiar. What I would do in your situation is issue a mea culpa rather than blame others. Whether you feel you are in the right or not is less relevant than navigating the social environment here on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Closure proposal

Freoh's apology has the pluses and minuses; but it shows involvement and a commitment to try and work with the crowd. We can keep berating them and asking them to bow down to all; but that is not required here in my opinion. This ANI is documented. If the issue repeats, we see past issues in context and take a decision thereon. Freoh seems to have understood the context. And I believe (given their statements) that they will use a more congenial and collaborative format of interacting with editors in the future. I propose we close this ANI report with a simple statement,

• "Freoh is formally warned and advised to be CIVIL in all their interactions. The community strongly expects Freoh to take various comments on this ANI proactively and to collaborate congenially going ahead. In case of future infractions, administrators will have the leeway to undertake escalating warnings and/or blocks, if required."

Lourdes 09:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Works for me.  — Freoh 11:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per all discussions above. – .Raven  .talk 18:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I resent Lourdes' choice of words: We can keep berating them and asking them to bow down to all. That is a very poor characterization of the legitimate concerns stated in this thread by several editors, myself included. Too many of you got too hung up on the clean start thing and didn't pay attention to anything else. As for the statement that this ANI is documented, so was the last one. This user has already received a formal warning, quite recently in fact. A second warning is pointless, and would – in my opinion – because worse than nothing because it would amount to an acknowledgment that the issues have continued but that the community simply does not care enough to actually do anything. Besides, we already have a proposal above that can be closed in accordance with whatever consensus the closing admin finds; we didn't need yet another subthread. Close the proposal above, close the megathread, kick the can down the round, and them blame yourselves when it ends up back here again in a few months. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as phrased: the warning is not strong or specific enough. It's not incivility so much as combativeness, not dropping the stick, and a special variety of wikilawyering (vis à vis this ANI thread and the overly zealous warnings issued to other editors). IMO Freoh should "chill out" but I am not sure how to word that and I have already tried. I definitely don't think Freoh should be banned, and a block could be seen as more punitive than preventative, but this warning doesn't quite do the trick. I'd say: Any admin (barring being involved in a direct dispute) may block or indef Freoh at any time if the behavior does not improve. I don't think any further warning or escalation is really necessary. Let admins do their thing and handle it like a discretionary sanctions situation. At that, does that even need to be said? Isn't that the prerogative of admins already? This is a very unfortunate situation because we have a most likely good faith attempt to address real concerns about bias in some important articles, but which are being approached in the wrong way. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Another proposal unnecessary — It seems this added proposal is unnecessary, as many people who already chimed in have expressed opposition to an indef and have opted for a warning. Given the abundance of votes it seems this ANI is close to closure anyway. This proposal will mostly, if not entirely, involve the same people chiming in all over again with the same vote and opinions. Indeed, the four votes here thus far were submitted by users who already voted and expressed their opinions in the above proposal. This redundant proposal is only going to drag this ANI out even further, and should be closed by an administrator. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• IMO what this needs is a tough thoughtful thorough warning and close and a record that there was a consensus for it. We've already invested a large amount of time and input on this, doing a little more to make sure it isn't all for nothing would be worth it. IMO the warning should include that there needs to be a substantial reduction in amount and severity of the behaviors which were the primary subjects of this discussion. I think that Freoh's apologies, self-reflection and statements were pretty good. However, regarding addressing of the combativeness the comments were so narrow / smaller scale that I don't think that they understand what the broad issue is. Degree of combativeness refers to dozens of areas. One might include how much severity it takes to go to a noticeboard and how they go about it such as the OP that started this here, another would be the frequency quantity and size and stridency of content debates (including bludgeoning), the degree that those are over what could be construed as a "cause" / value-laden material, the nastiness or friendliness of conversations. The latter would be worded as guidance and recommendation for a general evolution in that area rather than a structural part of the warning. I could try to draft one if folks want it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moves against consensus by Buaidh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Buaidh moved List of populated places in Colorado: A–K to List of populated places in Colorado and moved List of populated places in Colorado: L–Z to List of populated places in Colorado-02 with the summary "Perform requested move, see talk page". On the talk pages, the only requested move is from last year, where there was consensus for the pages to exist at the titles from which they were moved yesterday, a consensus that Buaidh supported at the time. I assume good faith in that Buaidh may have forgotten about the existing consensus rather than blatantly making a series of page moves against it. Instead, I see this more as a competence is required issue. As a page mover, this user should know to ensure moves have consensus and/or are not potentially controversial before conducting complex round-robin moves. Moreover, this series of moves involved 3 pages being requested for speedy deletion when proper use of suppress redirect could have afforded these moves without need of involving admins. This user suppress-moved the redirect List of populated places in Colorado/02 to Draft:List of populated places in Colorado/02, the latter of which was speedy deleted per G8, essentially improperly employing suppress-redirect to delete a valid {{R from move}} redirect. Similarly, this user requested List of populated places in Colorado: L–Z, another {{R from move}} redirect, be speedy deleted per WP:G7, which it improperly was; generally redirects from page moves should not be speedy deleted per G7. Buaidh recreated the redirect when I pointed this out but otherwise defended the moves by stating "List-02...is the format used for a great many extended lists". However, searching intitle:/-02/ combined with intitle:List reveals the only split lists using this scheme are the aforementioned List of populated places in Colorado-02 and the related List of places in Colorado-02. The naming conventions at WP:NCSPLITLIST do not advise numbering split lists sequentially in this way and instead recommend use of the A–K and L–Z format, where these pages existed previously per consensus at the RM. I come to ANI because rather than risking wheel warring with a fellow page mover by reverting these moves made against consensus, given the above, at a minimum I feel this user should not be trusted with page mover rights, as they are using them to make moves against consensus (or at least without sufficient due-diligence to ensure the moves are not potentially controversial) and are not taking sufficient care with related redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this really an urgent incident or a chronic, intractable behavioral problem? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, yes, this is the most appropriate forum for addressing this. Urgent in that there is a desire to avoid need for further reverts of complex moves, and this is not the first time this user has been involved with issues regarding page moves. WP:MR is not an appropriate forum because it is limited to outcomes of move discussions. I could contact the admin who granted page mover rights, but that could be construed as admin shopping. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The use of sequential numbering of extended lists is used extensively in the WikiProjects namespace. The advantage of sequential numbering is that the the component lists can be rebalanced when additional entries are added by moving letter groups around without the need to rename the sequential sublists. The first of the sequential lists is given the name of the List and subsequent sublists are numbered List-02, List-03, List-04, etc. This means that a user can go directly to the name of the List without having to be redirected. This has been a very useful solution to this problem. Thanks for your interest,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 20:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Buaidh - Please link to that guidance, so that we can find out why it differs from other established guidance. - jc37 21:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe that makes sense for project space, but is not used in article space. The scheme you seem to favor (but went along with last August) is essentially to use WP:SUBPAGES, which are not allowed in main space (as we discussed at the RM). Articles in mainspace, including list articles, need to have a precise title indicative of their content, hence "A–K" is favored over the ambiguous "-02" per WP:NCSPLITLIST. Regardless, there was existing recent consensus in this particular case, and a discussion such as a WP:RM would be needed to change it. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not certain that this is the best venue for this, but we're here, so whatever. (shrugs)

The "previous consensus", appears to be Talk:List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado#Requested_move_31_August_2022 - which had 3 contributors (and a closer).

That aside, the syntax that Template:A-Z multipage list appears to use is: colon space letter (or letter range). Which also appears to match the guidance at WP:NCSPLITLIST, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Glossaries#Article_growth_and_splitting.

Is that best practice? I don't know, but it seems to work. And happens to also be what the contributors to the aforementioned discussion seem to have agreed upon.

I'll drop a note at User_talk:Buaidh, to see if they would consider updating their edits. - jc37 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverting these moves is appropriate per the various and sundry other stuff Jc37 links to above, without prejudice to some other more-preferred name established at a move request. Izno (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, as an aside, Buaidh is apparently splitting the analogous county list from two pieces into three (why? I have no idea, seems unnecessary) but is still leaving the same erroneous justification in the edit summary of the move of "Perform requested move, see talk page". What requested move?! There is nothing about the move on the talk pages. You need to leave an edit summary that describes the justification for the move, linking to the pertinent discussion if there is one. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I did it because I'm an inherently evil person. The requested moves are from the discussion above. While I don't agree with the discussion above, I'm happy to have completed the following moves:

• REDIRECT List of places in Colorado
  • List of places in Colorado: A–F
  • List of places in Colorado: G–O
  • List of places in Colorado: P–Z
• REDIRECT List of populated places in Colorado
  • List of populated places in Colorado: A–F
  • List of populated places in Colorado: G–O
  • List of populated places in Colorado: P–Z
• REDIRECT List of populated places in Colorado by county
  • List of populated places in Colorado by county: A–E
  • List of populated places in Colorado by county: F–L
  • List of populated places in Colorado by county: M–Z

As the current coordinator for WikiProject Colorado, the Wikimedians of Colorado User Group, and the Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West, I do try to stay on top of things. If anyone objects, please let me know. Thanks again for your interest.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Starting of with sarcasm when your actions are questioned (with good reason) won't help you at all. You claim that these moves are "requested" "from the discussion above", uh, where? I don't see anyone asking for this either in this discussion or on the talk page? Your reference to your positions in meta-Wikimedian groups comes off as an argument from authority, such groups have no bearing at all on our content. And I have my doubts whether someone who doesn't seem to understand or care about standard practices and recently closed move discussions should be the coordinator of a wikiproject, but that is up to you and the members of the project. Your status there doesn't give you any extra authority though, and doing these moves with dubious claims in the edit summaries and while this discussion here is ongoing shows a serious lack of clue. Fram (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel the personal attack above is warranted. While I am elderly, ill, curmudgeonly, and on occasion sarcastic, I try to cooperate with all members of our community and abide by the will of the consensus of our community. I truly regret that I have offended any members of our community. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 11:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You "try to cooperate" by making moves against common practice and against a RM discussion you participated in first, by making some false claims, and then by making new moves / splits because of some request only you can see. You claim a personal attack was made when none is apparent, you claim that "If anyone objects, please let me know." but have no intention to actually undo your splits even though people have objected, you ignore my question about where the split or move was requested... Fram (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for my slow response to inquiries about list changes. I help maintain hundreds of lists, articles, and templates and I often get ahead of myself on documentation. Please see Talk:List of places in Colorado, Talk:List of places in Colorado: A–F, Talk:List of places in Colorado: G–O, Talk:List of places in Colorado: P–Z, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: A–F, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: G–O, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: P–Z, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county: A–E, Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county: F–L, and Talk:List of populated places in Colorado by county: M–Z. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You added things like this after my above post, as if they are justification of your moves of before that post which you claimed were already requested. You could just have said "sorry, I was mistaken, these weren't requested, my fault", but instead you strongly give the impression that you try to hide lies behind a bunch of links. So, one final time, you replied to Mdewman6 that "The requested moves are from the discussion above." you claimed in your edit summaries as well that these were requested; just give us a link or a diff to show us who requested these and where, or admit that you made this up and tried to obfuscate it for some reason. Fram (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just merely as a point of clarity, I think this - Talk:List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado#Requested_move_31_August_2022 - is the "discussion above" that he's referring to. It doesn't explain the "-02", "-03" edits, but his explanation above seems to (ease of further splitting, apparently), though that still doesn't explain why, when asked about it he did a "vague wave" to some WikiProject.

In the end he did undo the edits, which is a positive, though it might have been better if that had happened through discussion. Especially since nearly all the example links I provided were also in that RM discussion which he participated in, and that he seems to continually refer to.

I wonder if there is some automated tool involved here, which could explain the seeming copy-paste edit summaries. - jc37 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I went to look at the discussion again, and see that the talk page was moved. It's now at Talk:List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado:_A–F#Requested_move_31_August_2022. - jc37 16:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: remove Page Mover right from Buaidh

As suggested by the OP, User:Mdewman6, in their opening post above, and as evidenced by the later actions of Buaidh, they can't be trusted to perform page moves according to consensus and best practices, even during a discussion of such moves: so I propose to remove the Page Mover user right from user:Buaidh. Fram (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I find this highly offensive. I'm not sure what has inspired this kind of vitriol. This proposal is being made by a user who has been previously banned from the English language Wikipedia.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 13:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand why people take issue with you moving pages without consensus (in fact, against previous discussions) and refusing to undo them when people object? This isn't vitriol. This is basic responsiveness to concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think per User_talk:Buaidh#What_have_you_done_with_List_of_populated_places_in_Colorado?, which predates this AN/I thread, shows that he does respond to requests, and he was willing to address at least some of them.

My concern is that it seems like he didn't actually read the guidance that the other editor provided in that thread. If he had, he might have seen that what he said that had been "...discussed at length over the years", was in conflict with current guidance, and perhaps the two of them could have taken a look to see if that discrepancy between the two guidances could be resolved.

In looking at Wikipedia:Page_mover#Criteria_for_revocation, I think we could maybe be looking at #1 and #4. To me, it just depends on if this is a "one-off" incident, or if this turns out to be a pattern of behaviour. - jc37 17:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support (as OP). I want to reiterate that I do believe Buaidh generally acts in good faith, and that their contributions are valued. And this is most certainly not a personal attack. There is more data about Colorado on enwiki than exists for any other state due to this user's efforts. It's just that they lack the ability to always try to go about things in a manner consistent with existing consensus, policies, and guidelines, and this takes up time of others. In addition to the issues detailed in my first post above (making page moves without checking for past RMs, or ignoring their outcome; using suppress-redirect to get a valid redirect deleted, even if inadvertent), I am especially troubled by Buaidh continuing to use the same false edit summary even after it was pointed out to them why it was a problem (twice!). Now any user in the future wondering why those pages are at their current titles will be misled or confused. To me, it seems this user either can't be bothered to come up with a more accurate edit summary, or lacks the attention to detail to notice what edit summary they are leaving; either way this says to me "just let me do what I want to do here, and however I go about it is fine". It seems to me this user pretty much marches to the beat of their own drum, doing whatever they think is necessary or best at the moment (which they themselves may decide is different a day or month or year later), and are hesitant to change what they are doing when someone questions their edits for a valid reason.

Though indirectly related to page moves, this user also seems to have problems adhering to guidance in WP:Copying within Wikipedia, as noted by me on their talk page and in an AfD and another AfD, in addition to concerns about copy and paste moves raised recently at ANI.

WP:BOLD is all well and good, but continuing along a path after someone has pointed out that the edits/moves are contrary to existing consensus or in conflict with guidelines or naming conventions is not acceptable. This is especially true in cases of round-robin moves that can only be reverted by a page mover or admin, and thus cannot be addressed through the normal WP:BRD cycle. I am glad the pages above now once again use the format recommended by WP:NCSPLITLIST, but rather than simply moving all to the A–K and L–Z format to address the issue originally raised, Buaidh also decided to split all the lists from 2 pieces into 3 while this discussion was ongoing. On its own, this is fine, if not perhaps unnecessary, but was this really done just to show that they could make good use of the page mover tools? To me, this is just another example of this user's editing whims. I would not be at all surprised to wake up in a month or 6 or 10 and find in my watchlist that List of populated places in Colorado: G–O has been moved to List of populated places in Colorado: 02 (with a colon this time around instead of a backslash or hyphen) and we go through this all over again. Removal of page mover rights is not a punitive outcome, it means we are merely saying that it would be net positive for the encyclopedia if all page moves this user wishes to make go through WP:RM to establish consensus or WP:RM/TR where another user will confirm the move is uncontroversial and has a reasonable justification. (I don't think this user should have template editor or autopatrolled permissions either, but that's not my call and seemingly beyond the scope of the current discussion.) Mdewman6 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

(To be clear, removal of page mover permissions would still allow simple page moves (where the move target is unoccupied or occupied by a redirect to the same page with a single edit- i.e. those that can be easily reverted) to be done boldy, as is the case for any autoconfirmed editor). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I have always abided by the decision of a consensus of users. I made multiple mistakes in renaming these lists which I have now fixed. Since their creation, I've performed over 95% of the maintenance on these three lists which are under the primary purview of WikiProject Colorado. I have no ulterior motives. I don't feel I deserve this rebuke. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 06:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • You have been handwaving about some discussion to rename and split these lists in three parts, where you first used your unsupported naming system, and then made the split anyway: despite your claims, these weren't discussed or requested. The actual discussion from 2022, now at Talk:List of populated places in Colorado: A–F, was for a two-way split, not for what you did afterwards, and for which you have given no explanation or factual answer. Fram (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, single incident of just a single family of pages. Definitely worth discussing, but moving straight to rights revocation seems highly premature. There's been a mistake, not abuse. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I currently maintain more than 300 lists, 2800 templates, and hundreds of articles. Occasionally, I screw up. I am human. I do try to fix things and resolve issues with other users. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Fram#Colorado lists. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Where you still couldn't answer any of the questions raised here again and again. You claim to be so helpful all the time, here again you "try to resolve issues", but you have shown no evidence of this at all in this discussion. Instead of humbly proclaiming what a helpful editor you are over and over again, next time try to act like one. Fram (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I very much prefer to edit rather than debate. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Buaidh - I can understand that. However, I think you are not hearing the main concern here. I'll agree that sometimes you engage in discussion. But oftentimes you are dismissive even when there really are issues with your edits. Throughout this AN/I post, I've been trying to decide if - in the spirit of preventative not punitive - whether I, as an admin, should remove page mover from your account. You are a prolific editor and may do great work. But if it takes an AN/I thread to get you to respond to whether you are following established guidance or just your own sense of "what's right". then maybe you may need to work on explaining yourself better. To be clear - this isn't about whether you split a page into 2, 3 or 12. It's about your (lack of) engagement when questioned about your use of these extra tools. Sometimes you do. But as we've seen here. Sometimes you don't. And yes, sometimes editors can be jerks to each other when questioning others' edits. And so engaging with such editors may not seem to be productive. But, that's not what I saw in this case. You were presented with existing guidance, and you didn't address that at all.

Part of my concern is, even if Page mover is removed, you still will be able to move pages. And I would rather not see you back here - or worse - being sanctioned, in the future, due to such behaviours.

So please, I think everyone would appreciate something from you showing that you understand the issue(s), and will do better at engagement in the future. - jc37 21:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand the issues here very well. I will attempt to be more communicative and participatory. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 21:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. To be transparent, I'm not thrilled with the "non-answer" in the first part of your response.You've said that repeatedly, but your actions have only partially been supporting that assertion. But I am going to WP:AGF here, and accept that your statement is sincere and that you will work on this. Because, to be clear: If this behaviour continues, you may find that an uninvolved admin, may do more than merely remove the page mover tools. And I'd rather not see you blocked from editing, or otherwise sanctioned, in the future.

I'm not going to close this request, however. I think this can wait at least another 24 hours to see if there is any additional comment, and then someone uninvolved should be able to make a determination. - jc37 21:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

My non-answer neatly side-stepped any acknowledgement of my personal wrong doing. I answered the inquiry of User:Mdewman6 within 56 minutes with a defense of my actions rather than an acknowledgment of my mistake. (I didn’t fully or properly read the Mdewman6 post until the following day.) When Mdewman6 filed this AN/I 13 hours later, I continued to defend my changes until I finally acknowledged my mistake and repaired the lists almost six hours later. This all could have been avoided by posting my intentions at Wikipedia:Move review and following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (lists)#Long (split) list naming recommendations. I often get involved in very long maintenance sessions and frequently fail to fully address legitimate inquiries and requests. I need to change this behavior which does neither me nor Wikipedia any good. My abbreviated responses often come across as arrogant which is certainly not my intent. I'm not a "my way or the highway" person. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Some of the moves, which sometimes rely of the page mover rights and can be particularly hard to undo, are a concern by themselves. But my main reason for supporting the removal of the right is the dissembling/filibustering by Buaidh when asked multiple times to provide evidence (in the form of simple diffs) to support the claims in their edit-summaries that the moves were supported by existing talk-page consensus. Abecedare (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the overwhelming consensus expressed on this AN/I. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

So, if I am understanding it right:

• The first time you moved the page on Jun 4 with edit-summary Perform requested move, see talk page, the talk-page discussion didn't really exist (this was the actual RM that had already been acted upon 10 months back)
• The second time you moved the page on Jun 6 with edit-summary Perform requested move, see talk page, the talk page referred to this ANI where your judgement about page-moves was already being questioned. And you still think the above discussion represented "overwhelming consensus" for the page moves you implemented, even though that was not even the crux of the discussion and most editors interested in the lists are unlikely to be even aware of it?

Frankly, given the unilateral disruptive moves, false/misleading edit-summaries, and the aforementioned dissembling, I am struggling to see an argument for why you should retain the page-mover right. Abecedare (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I screwed up. I've quite obviously learned a hard lesson. I really don't wish to be called up on AN/I again. After 16 years, 6 months, 18 days, and 285,095 edits this is a total embarrassment. Since I'm the one who maintains these lists, I'm the one who had to make all the repairs. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Would it kill y'all to treat Buaidh as a colleague with which you have a disagreement, instead of ... whatever this is? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  Adding: And what's especially disturbing is that Buaidh appears to have done about 99% of the work in creating these pages. And now they are dragged in front the wider community, where a bunch of us who didn't do that work get to vote on whether the fact that they changed their mind about how that work should be organized is deserving of a demotion. WP:OWN, WP:SHMOWN, I'd be getting much more snippy if I were Buaidh's place. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not curmudgeonly enough. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Let's keep this in perspective. We're talking about changing a user's tools, that only 386 users other than admins currently possess, that were given at the discretion of a single admin based on evidence of both ability and need, when now we have multiple admins and other users questioning whether continuing to possess those tools is in the best interest of the project. We're not talking about a block or ban or anything punitive. I'm not seeing evidence this user can improve. To the edit summary issue, when fixing the moves originally at issue (while also splitting them from 2 parts into 3) they omitted edit summaries when copying and pasting content between pages, thus not providing any attribution for where the content being moved/duplicated came from per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, something I have pointed out to Buaidh before as noted above. For example, 121,730 bytes of content were removed from List of populated places in Colorado: A–F with an incomprehensible edit summary, and this material was copied into List of populated places in Colorado: G–O without saying where it came from. Similarly 125,331 bytes removed from List of populated places in Colorado by county: A–E and then added into List of populated places in Colorado by county: F–L with no edit summary. In short, Buaidh is always responsive to concerns, and does try to fix things, but for whatever reason, they keep doing the same problematic things. That is my concern. But if there is ultimately no consensus here for a permissions change, I am fine to see how things go. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In purely self-interest, I'm more than happy to change if it means I can avoid punitive actions in the future. You learn a great deal in 75 years. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 07:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

> "but did not suppress the redirect"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SummerKrut

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SummerKrut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engages in uncivil/battleground behaviour and edit wars, in particular in the contentious topic of Eastern Europe. On Talk:Dnieper, SK accused another editor User:Mzajac of promoting Ukrainian state-sponsored propaganda [158], later calling MZ a pro-Ukrainian propagandist [159]. When challenged by MZ, SK barely changed anything [160], not following WP:REDACT

When I asked SK to consider striking uncivil comments, instead of showing that they understand policy, they doubled down with Truth stings.[161].

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

SummerKrut has been made aware that they are editing in a contentious topic.[162]  —Michael Z. 20:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In talk:Dnieper#Requested move 7 June 2023 SummerKrut has approached the subject from a WP:BATTLE perspective. Initially they voted with the sole rationale “pro-ukrainian POV-pushing,”[163] although they soon modified that,[164] and again later. But they continued to argue that the proposed title “is a transliteration from Ukrainian, which means that it promotes a specific point of view”[165] (ignoring that the current title, while historically more common in English, is derived from Russian). They seem to have not only disagreed with but took offence at my arguments, and made blatant accusations of bad-faith editing against me personally, and using labels associating supposed bad behaviour with Ukraine or Ukrainian nationality.

• “Thanks for proving that your only goal in Ukrainian topics is promoting a pro-Ukrainian point of view”[166]
• “please stop trying to promote Ukrainian state-sponsored propaganda”[167]
• “This is exactly why arguing with Ukrainian propagandists is pointless,”[168] quietly modified to “pro-Ukrainian” after I expressed my disapproval.[169]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Lourdes: I am not sure what you are asking me for. If you read the whole discussion, you would see that Mzajac badgers all opposes, and despite the outcome clearly not going to what they want it to be they insist on being absolutely correct with some arguments which are weak but policy-based and a lot of arguments which are not policy based. Even in this very discussion (ANI) above, they cite their own opinion [170] based on a biased source and call it "consensus". This is not the first discussion they behave like this and in fact this has been ongoing for years. They were previously topic-banned for similar behavior in Kyiv. If you insist that I collect all the diffs, this can not be done urgently, it could easily take me a few weeks - mind you, I have a full-time job and I do not have a file with links ready, I will have to search for them - I will go straight to the Arbitration Enforcement to ask for a topic ban. However, to be honest, this is not the highest priority for me. --Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  In 2020 they labelled me a “POV-pushing” “Ukrainian ultra-nationalist”[171] (a lie).

  They even defended this slander in a related issue at ANI,[172] although admins demonstrated no will to do anything about it then. This was extremely upsetting and after multiple requests, they hypocritically “struck” the statement while amplifying it with “I still stand by every word of it,”[173] and finally removed that.[174]

  Since then they have repeatedly tried to keep me on edge by casting aspersions,[175] gloating about a previous topic ban,[176][177] and threatening admin actions.[178][179][180]

  Worst of all, attacking me and my contributions, with no basis. This is becoming disruptive.[181][182][183][184][185][186] (To the point of inspiring less experienced editors to ape their ad hominem attacks in content disputes.)[187]

  Ymblanter makes it clear they have been on a mission to get me to leave or banned for all this time.[188][189]

  They also often invoke groups of Ukrainians or Ukrainian ultranationalists working in concert,[190] and express a disdain for Ukrainian sources or “propaganda.”[191][192][193]

  Many of these attacks come unbidden, in discussions where Ymblanter is not participating and only arrives to attack me. The most egregious was a discussion at Talk:History of Kyiv#Consistent spelling of the title term in the text where they arrived out of the blue determined to finally get me for good. First they falsely claimed I was topic banned,[194] threatened me,[195] then moralized and decided to file an AE request.[196] The request is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive301#Mzajac. I was too upset about all of this to actually respond directly to the accusation before the request was closed with no action.

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

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

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

  I have no idea what that means.

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

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

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

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

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frequent disruptive editings and vandalism by an anonymous user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@El C Alright, I assure that I will not repeat that mistake again. I agree that the user had taken issue with the reliability of some of the sources, but not all. I would like to consult the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for this. Before doing so, please give me some time for making myself familiar with the noticeboard as I am not properly aware about it. Thanks. Altoumulus (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries, Altoumulus, all good. Happy that resonated. Also, there's no clock on this, so take as much time as you need. El_C 11:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Lets.Custodio making paid/ChatGPT edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Lets.Custodio (talk · contribs · logs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

I also left a note at Commons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pt.wikipedia notice:

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Researcher

Job Description:

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

Responsibilities:

- Read, and interpret Wikipedia articles.

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

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

- Gather a comprehensive and reliable set of primary sources.

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

- Participate in the peer review process.

Requirements:

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

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

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

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

Strong communication skills and the ability to collaborate effectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Large language models

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV naming alterations from Typical Albanian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plainly you are unfamiliar with ANI, so allow me to enlighten you: we are not only under no onus to discuss only the things you want us to discuss, the conduct of the OP is subject to review as well, and often is. So I will ask you again: which of these articles under question have been mentioned frequently enough in English-language sources to have established a standard, which articles based in Serbian-majority areas do you claim to have been changed by TA, and what are your non-procedural objections to his edits? It is a poor look for you to duck these questions. Ravenswing 17:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Bob3458

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support a block. It may not be intentional, but the user's continued addition of redundant cats is disruptive. The issue of redundant cats has been explained multiple times on the user's talk page User_talk:Bob3458#June 2023, multiple times on what appears to be their IP talk page User talk:86.29.114.58, multiple times in edit summaries ([197] [198], [199] for a few examples), on an article talk page Talk:Harry Shearer#Redundant categories (after the user requested the discussion [200]), on my talk page User talk:Meters#Can you explain your stance on categories?, on another user's talk page User talk:Hey man im josh#Overcategorization, and in this thread, but after all this the user is still adding redundant cats. See [201] where Category:People from Des Moines, Iowa was added even though the child cat Category:Writers from Des Moines, Iowa was already present, or [202] where Category:American film producers was added even though the child cat Category:American film directors of Indian descent was already present. I don't know if this is WP:IDHT or simply WP:CIR, but enough.

I strongly suspect that the user is also using 86.29.114.58 to make these CAT edits. They are both CAT SPAs with identical issues with overcategorization and adding redundant cats. After Bob3458's redundant cats had been removed from Harry Shearer twice, and a talk page thread had been started at the user's request, the IP showed up to restore the cats [203]], and delete the talk page thread [204]. Note that Bob3458 was editing mere minutes before and after both of these IP edits (Special:Contributions/Bob3458), so this appears to be intentional WP:LOUTSOCK. Meters (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If you feel my edits are disruptive and you need to block me then so be it.

I never intended for this to happen but clearly my actions cause harm and I can only apologise. Bob3458 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems I edit conflicted with the following two posts. If Bob3458 stops editing (with both the named account and the IP) then there is no need for a block, but I will reinstate a request for a block if the user comes back and exhibits the same problematic categorizations. Meters (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Like I said I’ll stop editing as much because this whole situation is stressing me out too much and it isn’t good for my mental health. Plus I don’t want a repeat of this situation.

Again I can only apologise. Bob3458 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed the recent contributions of Bob3458, and they show the complete opposite of his promise to stop overcategorizing. If he does not get the message, then I think he should be blocked from editing. 2001:569:507E:FB00:1813:2DF8:95A9:A321 (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I’ll just stop editing from Wiki for a while then because I try and follow the rules and then I unintentionally break them, maybe it’s for the best that I take a break.

Sorry to you guys for letting you down. Bob3458 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Persistent creation of non-notable articles

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

Courtesy links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Penguino, please step back. Of course Wikipedia suffers from systemic racism, just like any other organization. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but this situation is not an instance of that. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@DarkHorseMayhem (talk · contribs), please watch out for anything that could violate our WP:CANVASS rules. These edits [205][206] asking for AfD votes, in the context of discussions with an editor who is nominating similar articles are, at best, borderline. I know you're newish here -- know that this can be a very big deal. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Through the end of May to this month, I have seen this user persistently add unsourced and/or poorly sourced material to the article Janet Jackson: Together Again, like these edits: [207], [208], [209]. When I had given them a notice on their edits and tried to explain about reliable sources, I was met with name-calling here and here. User also falsely accused me of owning the page when I was acting in part with the guidelines of Wikipedia as their edits seem to go against WP:UGC and WP:RSPTWITTER. Another user, Livelikemusic opened an SPI, as Lost ingrande's edits are familiar to another user, and resorted to name-calling them as well, referring to them as "ignorant" and a "bully". I am starting to believe that they are not willing to listen to the guidelines and still want to push that according to them, "multiple sources have reported on it" when I have not seen any news reports on that song they are adding, have reported on it being performed - as their sources are either user-generated content or from a social network on fan accounts from Twitter. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I appreciate your kind response and actually willing to explain to me about it without making reports. I’m just very confused and frustrated with this situation, because you can seriously go to any Janet Jackson tour, a lot of songs that were have said to be performed at this show were not sourced and yet not one person either deleted or had to deal with the disrespect of certain people who think they rule a page and will not allow anyone to add anything to it if it’s not their citation or their rules. I’ve used literally 3 different sources, all which were used on other pages and like I said, no complaints were ever given unlike right now. There is proof that Janet Jackson performed sexhibition at the Kansas City tour. I really do not like how far this problem really became when it really shouldn’t be that big of a deal Lost ingrande (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Like JML1148 has said, the claims from the three sources you gave may be true, but with the sources provided from fan accounts and user-generated sources, they can't verify them, so it is original research. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

TheXuitts

User TheXuitts (talk · contribs) has been consistently making some uncivil remarks, as recently as a couple of days ago to this day. First they called me "a dictator", told another user they weren't sure "if you took middle school math" and has responded to my warning regarding their incivility as "you posed as an admin and made a fake warning post on my page because of a comment I made on an edit. This is borderline blackmail and way worse than anything I said about another user". It is plain visible on their talk page they've hidden some previous warnings for some misbehavior. Bedivere (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to note the user has just apologized for their offensive remarks. Bedivere (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Then we can let go of this for now. Thanks, Lourdes 05:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Deceased blocked as sockpuppet?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati

His biography exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hridayeshwar_Singh_Bhati

Account blocked as sockpuppet of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarower_Sigh_Bhati

Who was operating the account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.105.102.81 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It was blocked a decade ago. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:PradeepLogik

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Hi, I noticed that User talk:PradeepLogik submitted an draft article for review Draft:Obaid Al-Ketbi, which got rejected twice. The user was notified that their previous username was "Logikadvertising" which was later changed to PradeepLogik. The article submitted for creation is reads like an advertisment/CV. I believe that the user has an undisclosed conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyvagaba (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Also all the photos are tagged as being from the article subject's personal collection, so they need to be tagged as not having the correct license and possibly deleted until we know we have permission. Canterbury Tail talk 14:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vyvagaba: I have added userlinks at the beginning of the section. I think that the username "Logikadvertising" was a declaration of COI, but they probably also need to make a WP:Paid-contribution disclosure. TSventon (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

User:PradeepLogik has not edited since 17 April. I have posted a standard warning about paid editing on their user page. TSventon (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible serious legal issue with John Anthony Castro page

A user who says they are the lawyer of John Anthony Castro raised a serious concern about the use of a possibly illegally obtained document in the article: Talk:John_Anthony_Castro#Request_for_Assistance_-_Unlawful_Upload_&_Abuse_of_Power_on_Wikipedia. (I'm not sure this the right noticeboard for this, feel free to tell me if it is not.) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page in more detail, but that is a public document. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a 'public document'. Or at least a publicly-available one. It clearly shouldn't have been cited in the article though. Not just because we don't cite court documents in general, but because the submission of a document to a court as evidence is in no shape or form proof of its authenticity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Not meaning to change the subject, but Mr. Castro's notability as a BLP subject seems dubious. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

They should probably email legalwikimedia.org as this sounds beyond what the community can deal with. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

COI and legal threats

Alexhepburn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continued to edit the pages related to Alex Hepburn after multiple warnings, but I was willing to try to help until this legal threat. --Muhandes (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Legal threats and a username issue, too. Blocked under NLT. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If you were trying to help, this wasn't a great way to go about it. 86.3.219.123 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the IP. I think Muhandes needs a trout slap, and would recommend that they read WP:DOLT carefully. When subjects complain about their own articles, they don’t give two hoots about Wikipedia policy, they just want potential libel fixed. Now you’ve wasted the time of Wikimedia Legal who’ve got to deal with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: As you know, I always welcome a trout slap if I err, as noted on my user page. I also welcome any constructive feedback such as yours, although I do tend to ignore it when it comes from an anon IP who can't even bother to open an account so we can continue the discussion properly. I also think the place for constructive feedback is my own talk page rather than ANI, but since you gave it here I will respond here. In this particular case, I took the initiative to clean up the article first, addressing the issues pointed out by the COI editor. Only after that, I initiated a discussion, which I believe aligns with the principles of WP:DOLT. Subsequently, I attempted to engage in dialogue with them. However, they quickly escalated the situation by persistently making unsourced COI edits, including the inclusion of dubious data. I made efforts to reason with them, but unfortunately, they remained unresponsive. In hindsight, it might have been more prudent for me to disengage and escalate the matter to ANI instead of continuing the back-and-forth exchange. I will certainly take this into consideration for future situations. In the end, it is an admin's choice whether to address the WP:LEGAL with a block or not. Anyway, thanks for the feedback and have fun editing. Muhandes (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

...an anon IP who can't even bother to open an account so we can continue the discussion properly – Editors should not be looked down upon for not registering an account. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the edits that Alexhepburn made, that Muhandes reverted as vandalism, were technically indistinguishable from vandalism. The account does have an air of a joe job around it. Still, they're blocked now, so that's a moot point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Ajeeb Prani editing and interefering in my user page.

This user is editing and reverting my user page across different Wikipedia [210]. I did this complain previously also [211]. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

[212], [213] ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't really give this too much of a look right now, but I have notified Ajeeb Prani of this discussion. A quick glance looks like the previous AN/I thread didn't really go anywhere (and nor did the related SPI). It might be worth both users leaving each other alone (and stopping whatever this is.) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime I am not doing anything, but this guy is editing my userpage constantly across other Wikipedias too. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 14:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this started with Ajeeb Prani's suspicion that ZenDrago X was a sock puppet. See this exchange, subsequently deleted, where Ajeeb Prani grilled ZenDrago X about copy-and-pasting material from a hi.wikipedia user page to use on his user page here.

Ajeeb Prani later issued a spam warning to Zendrago X.[214]

Subsequently, Ajeeb Prani asked a question; the diffs they cite doesn't work, so I don't understand it. It seems to do with copying something from Ajeeb Prani's user space. This continued until Ajeeb Prani blanked the thread and told ZenDrago X: "Nevermind, don't revert back this topic on your talk page".

Elsewhere, Ajeeb Prani has accused Zendrago X of being a sock of Amanheheh337:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amanheheh337/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amanheheh337
  • Note the comment by Spicy; somehow the topic of Indian cartoon shows apparently draws sockpuppets, Joe jobs, intrigue and hard feelings. Checkers have a hard time sorting this out.

Here's a thread about Amanheheh337 who may or may not even have anything to do with any of this.

• • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099#Reverting edits

On Zendrago X's hi.wikipedia user talk, there was a discussion about User:Yuugone, Ajeeb Prani's previous user name. Ajeeb Prani blanked this thread with the comment "व्यक्तिगत हमले को हटा दिया". I do not know Hindi.

3 weeks later, A.P. left a message there again.

Zendrago X left these messages on Ajeeb Prani's hi.wikipedia user talk page:[215] and [216]

I have wasted too much time trying to sort this out. I think this pair of editors needs to stay away from each other.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, the Hindi phrase quoted by A. B. translates as "removed the personal attack". Narky Blert (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

For those who don't know Hindi, let me tell you what happened on Hindi Wikipedia, firstly Zendrago X gave me a barnstar here then on Hindi Wikipedia he asked me to vote for him in exchange of that barnstar. DESIULTRA one of the blocked sockpuppet of Amanheheh337 personally attacked me on Hindi Wikipedia on Zendrago X's talk page (I don't know why DESIULTRA wrote that on Zendrago X's talk page; maybe they know eachother off wiki), then I complained about them to an admin after they got blocked I removed that personal attack towards me from their userpage. Also Zendrago X is copying me here on English Wikipedia, he is creating same user sub-page as me [217] [218] [219] [220], that's why I told them to not copy me. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Desi Ultra was thinking that I am Yuugone, don't be so smart he abused me because he thought that I am Yuugone. anyone can se what is written there. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 09:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@DESIULTRA came on my talk page [221] and he writes that (Tu zarur Yuu hai hena mc) Means You are Yuugone isn't? you @#%. He thought me Yuugone which tells that they are connected with other as they were fighting. I am ready to end fight with Ajeeb Prani but he is creating mess. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 09:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zendrago X: Leaving DESIULTRA topic apart, why are you copying everyone on English and Hindi Wikipedia? Ajeeb Prani (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I am just coping user templates from other userpages, those all templates all already available on Wikipedia, anybody can use it. So why are you reverting my page? You can also copy my userpage I will not say anything. Its just an userpage not any article.

Secondly those pages were sandboxes every Wikipedian Account can create own sandbox, so it is not copied. So please don't revert my page again. If you wanted your userpage too look good, I can help you. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 10:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s clear that the two of you don’t like each other. It’s not clear how this bickering helps us build and maintain and English-language encyclopaedia.

Just leave each other alone and we’ll all be happier. Drop the stick.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/gaming/COI issue

I have some concerns with the actions of HJackson77 (talk · contribs). They used their userpage to create an article on themselves, which was deleted at MfD. However, they appear to have recently created a new account (PeterOR1 (talk · contribs)) and recreated this article in the sandbox of that article (editing it from both accounts).

On top of that, the editor in question also appears to be a coach at FC Romania, an article they have regularly edited. I have twice requested that they stop editing the article due to a WP:COI, but they have continued to do so. They have also told me to "stop poking your nose in where is isn't wanted".

I was tempted to block them for sockpuppetry/gaming, or specifically block them from the FC Romania article, but given my previous interactions with them, would probably be considered involved, so seeking others admins' opinions. Cheers, Number 57 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked PeterOR1 as a clear illegitimate sock. Will warn the master against further shenanigans. Star Mississippi 15:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also deleted the sandbox of the blocked user under G4. Cheers, Number 57 16:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, do you really think that’s enough? I’m much more inclined to just indef the master now. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles I haven't had time to fully dig into the COI issues @Number 57 referenced and didn't want to block without doing so. If you feel there's enough, I have no objection. The second account was a bright line block for me without digging. Star Mississippi 16:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

AssociateAffiliate's sig

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Examples of usage, going back to 2018: [222], [223], [224] [225], [226], [227]

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

AssociateAffiliate was notified[228] of the problem on 4 June by Toddst1. I followed up on 21 June with the same complaint.[229]: see discussion at User_talk:AssociateAffiliate#WP:SIGPROB (permalink), where AssociateAffiliate repeatedly refuses to fix the sig. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

But apparently accusing other editors of lying [230] [231] or denial of reality [232] [233], [234], isn't a problem?Nigel Ish (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lepricavark, what I actually wrote[235] was either you lieing or you are incapable of checking very simple facts before you write.

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

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

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

I really don't know if AA/SW is actually guilty of making false assertions, but what I do know is that you have a history of making these sorts of accusations, so much so that three years ago ArbCom passed a unanimous finding of fact stating that you repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including stating that editors are either liars or lying [236]. This is a recurrence of the sort of behavior that led to your desysop. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Please. We've all made mistakes. Some of us more than others. We all believe our actions are for the good of the universe. Sometimes, people disagree. Shouldn't we just compromise and and blame the universe? Let's pick ourselves up from this and move on. There are worse things that have happened on the site as of late. Bobo. 06:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is interesting. I've seen multiple users with signatures completely different from their user names over the years - I'm pretty sure some have been admins. I find it intensely annoying/confusing but have thought/assumed that there was nothing in policy stopping it. I note that WP:CUSTOMSIG/P is a guideline not policy. Can AA's signature really be the basis of a complaint? DeCausa (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I can't say I'm chafing over signatures deviating from usernames now, as tools like the Reply tool allow users to ping others that have participated in the discussion when pressing the @ key. Scripts like Convenient Discussions straight up strip away any formatting and leaves behind the editor's user page and talk page. There should be some semblance of their name in the signature, but I don't necessarily think it needs to be a carbon copy of an editor's username. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  ... by actual username, though. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the point. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ableist comment telling me to kill myself

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Look at my talk page. This guy is telling me to kill myself and I will not stand for that. Oh, and by the way, I have high-functioning autism, so this guy is perfectly okay with making ableist comments against me. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Holy fuck, this is beyond not okay. That's definitely gonna need revdel. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Done, and the offender blocked. It's a mobile IP, so probably won't do much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@100.7.44.80: I do recommend creating an account. You make a lot of helpful edits, and I'd love seeing you around!
Sorry about your experience here though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Barry Wom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't understand what the problem is with this guy who lives in the middle of what I do and don't do. He keeps reverting my edits because of my spelling and when I correct it, he continues with the same attitude that already goes to the point of rudeness and harassment. I am bored with this situation. Please friends, administrators, take some action because as I said, I'm fed up with this. None of you would want someone else to go around reversing what you have worked so hard to do. That guy is like the story called The Dog in the Manger by Lope de Vega; he doesn't eat and doesn't let eat, or in this case; he doesn't do but he doesn't let do either. JeanCastì (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@JeanCastì, why have you made no attempt to discuss the content disagreement on the article talk pages? Your only communication was a post to User talk:Barry Wom demanding to be left alone, 10 minutes before posting here. Please try the options at dispute resolution first. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some history to this: JeanCasti's Jan 2023 complaint. Schazjmd (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I've notified Barry Wom about this discussion, as required. Please remember to do this next time. Woodroar (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't necesary.--JeanCastì (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@JeanCastì, proper notification is mandatory. Please read the notice at the top of this page. Schazjmd (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have already written to Barry. That's why I said it wasn't necessary. JeanCastì (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@JeanCastì: either you forgot to submit or you're confused about what notification is. Notification means you must tell an editor you have opened a discussion on this board that concerns them. Telling an editor to leave you alone [237] is not notification since there is no way an editor can know this means you are about to open a discussion here about them. As mentioned by another editor above, it's also silly to tell an editor to leave you alone if you're just going to come here 8 minutes later when the other editor has not edited in over 7 hours. Assuming there really is a problem with the editor's behaviour, either the editor's behaviour is bad enough that you don't have to talk to them about it, or you've already talked and so either way you can come here to discuss it; or you should talk to the editor about it and only come here when it's clear the behaviour is not going to improve which means the editor needs to be given time to respond and improve. Nil Einne (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And you don't say which article(s) this is about. The most recent articles that you have both edited seem to be Robin in other media and Bruce Wayne (Dark Knight trilogy) which have both seen some recent edit-warring but have, as Schazjmd says, nothing about this dispute on their respective talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which article I'm talking about. This is almost everytime.--JeanCastì (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Gentlemen (specially @Schazjmd): with that guy I wanted to deal with the good ones and I let him know on his discussion page. There is no need to go into further details. I already let him know everything there was to say on his discussion page. It is best that things are resolved here before they get worse.--JeanCastì (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@JeanCastì, I am not male. You have not answered why you have not discussed any of the content disputes on the article talk pages. Schazjmd (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know you're a female, so I offer my apologies. To Barry I already wrote and our dispute is not over content issues but because as I am learning English, and Barry questions and judges my spelling, he does not correct and revert in good faith. That is the issue. And this page says to first discuss with the other editor before putting the complaint here and that's what I did. It is simply that. JeanCastì (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@JeanCastì, your post to to Barry's talk page did not inform them that you had opened a complaint here; that is the notification that is mandatory. As for "first discuss with the other editor", you only waited 10 minutes before complaining here. You didn't allow time for any discussion there. Schazjmd (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The old adage says: a word to the wise is a word to the wise. He knows what I am talking about and I hope this is a call to reflection; either you help for good or you don't help at all. Reversing on the grounds of misspelling is not helping for the better. But I see below that everyone takes it very personally. Anyway, I'll stick to creating articles and stay away from DC Comics. May it all be for the best. JeanCastì (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Can an admin please block User:JeanCastì? This might cool things down and give User:JeanCastì a chance to reflect and read more about how this project is suppose to work. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not do “cool down” blocks, mainly because they always without fail heat up any given situation. — Trey Maturin™ 22:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  But this editor should be blocked for the old-fashioned reason that doing so would protect the encyclopedia and its working environment. They have been warned about this behaviour many times. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, fine, then block this user to end the disruption and time sink that is ongoing. This user has been warned numerous times and has not heeded these warnings. --Malerooster (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  This kind of behavior is not helpful at all for the project. Sounds like a WP:COMPETENCE matter. As some have pointed out, this scenario is a repeat of January (they have slowed their editing until this month) so the previous block apparently was not taken seriously. I recommend an indefinite block.Mike Allen 01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  That comment right there that you shared is proof enough of this user's combativeness and unwillingness to cooperate or work well with others. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't know me to go around saying that I don't work in a team. In fact, I like the way bots and others fix the sources of the articles I create. Besides, in teamwork, you never trip each other up. You don't hinder their actions but on the contrary you help them. There are people who have helped me here and I thank them but Mike and Barry are the ones who have made my life impossible here, just because I don't speak English well. Keep up the attitude. Because as the saying goes; the thief judges by his condition.--JeanCastì (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked JeanCastì for two weeks for disruptive editing. The next block is likely to be indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but when JeanCastì wrote the bizarre metaphor Because as the saying goes; the thief judges by his condition, the editor was probably directly translating from the Spanish phrase Ladrón juzga por su condicion, which seems to make sense in Spanish but is bewildering in English. What is not bewildering is that they were comparing other Wikipedia editors with thieves, which is unacceptable. The editor repeatedly acknowledges I don't speak English well as a justification for why they think they are being persecuted. If the editor's first language is Spanish, and if they are willing to treat other editors as collaborators instead of enemies, then perhaps the Spanish Wikipedia may be a better fit for them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The Spanish proverb appears to refer to projection. An English approximation is "the pot calls the kettle black". Narky Blert (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Or, better, "A thief believes everyone is a thief". Narky Blert (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Any guess on the intended meaning of a word to the wise is a word to the wise? 70.163.208.142 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soapboxing and IDHT

Any admin want to review the contributions of ‎StopSayingMyth (talk · contribs) to see if they've run out of rope yet? See posts at Talk:Hindu mythology, Talk:Yama (see also the section after the one linked), and at their talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I've been saved the trouble - thanks @Abecedare. Here are some choice diffs for any passing interested parties. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And now this. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

My points have yet to be refuted. If they are not warring then I am not warring. If there are synonyms which do not discriminate then Wikipedia guidelines would suggest to use the synonyms which cannot be used for discrimination. I have yet to hear a reason against using a synonym (which is my entire point), and therefore it is not warring. All I have heard is misrepresentation, gaslighting, and attempts to intimidate and control me and the others who have posted the same topic. I am not as easy to push around I suppose as I know that I can continue to speak the truth even if the majority is biased StopSayingMyth (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"myth" and "story" are definitely not synonymous. Also, how can "myth" be discriminatory and its alleged synonym "story" not be? 2600:4040:475E:F600:C0CD:D925:37AA:E455 (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to the page Synonym. Then please refer to the pageMyth. Then you can compare it to the pages Story, Tradition, Belief, Narrative, Anecdote, Epic, Tale, and many others because you are much smarter than me apparently and therefore would know many more synonyms than even I know.

But why defend only the one discriminatory word above all the others? That my friend is warring StopSayingMyth (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

In what way is the word "myth" discriminatory? --2600:4040:475E:F600:C0CD:D925:37AA:E455 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well thanks for trying to understand my perspective better. Myth is commonly used to mean something which is false in every context. If you've seen the show Mythbusters they try to determine if a theory is either true or a myth. So because there are many many synonyms which do not include this false meaning it makes more sense to use those. I will try to give clearer example maybe.

Story about lemons means Story about lemons

Myth about lemons means false belief about lemons

This is the issue of me and many commenters and many many more readers who did not feel like they would be heard if they were to comment. Please its a simple thing just use a synonym that doesn't put people's closest held beliefs down StopSayingMyth (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Myth" has also been used in a far more neutral sense - and is still far more often used that way today in re belief systems and religion - to describe parables, tales, and the like intended to be accepted by a belief system. Context matters. And citing Mythbusters is an incredibly horrendous take that assumes none of what they examine is true or even possible. Are you taking the piss? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If you really had a point you wouldn't need to try demeaning me as a person. There's nothing neutral in that word and I gave an example. Please give an example then where myth is more neutral than story. I don't believe you'll be able to do this StopSayingMyth (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I hope one does soon, since they're continuing their crusade here now. Their contributions, particularly at Talk:Hindu mythology, indicate that they've made up their mind and aren't going to let go of this stick, no matter what any other editors say. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"crusade" is demeaning. If someone responds to me I have the right to respond. Please be kinder to those you disagree with StopSayingMyth (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A simple inspection of the titles of the sources used in the Hindu mythology article readily demonstrates that this is an argument with scholarship in general, rather than Wikipedia. We go by the sources, and that is really all that needs saying here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is a position that can be discussed. Thank you for your reasonable perspective. I don't believe that just because a book is insulting or demeaning it means it is always okay to do. The sources also use other synonyms so we should use those words instead. Do you understand what I am trying to say? Let's use the non-demeaning source material not the opinion based parts which are hurtful and do not belong on an objective site. StopSayingMyth (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Picking and choosing which parts of reliable sources to use based on our personal opinions would violate neutral point of view. WPscatter ^t/_c 00:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Using opinion based terminology would violate neutral point of view. Using only factual and unbiased terminology is the definition of neutral point of view StopSayingMyth (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't. On Wikipedia, neutral point of view means giving due weight to reliable sources. If an "opinion" (or the use of a particular word) is shared by a majority of reliable sources then we are obligated to adhere to it. WPscatter ^t/_c 00:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not an opinion to call certain aspects of religions "myths"; that has been a widely used term in religious studies for many years. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In addition, you username suggests that you are a single-purpose account with the intent of subverting Wikipedia's long-standing consensus on this subject. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I have started this account with the intent to discuss this specific topic. I am not a very creative person, please don't attack me personally. If the majority of people read the word myth as untrue story then this is what the word means. This is why the word gender has changed definitions in recent years because the definition of a word is how it is widely used. 99.99% of people who read "Hindu Mythology" would interpret that as ancient false beliefs on par with leeching people for health. This is my issue and the issue of many commentors StopSayingMyth (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The term "myth" means different things depending on the context. This has been explained to you many times. We are not going to stop using an accurate term because it might be interpreted negatively by certain people. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

StopSayingMyth blocked indef

See details @User talk:StopSayingMyth#Indefinite block. El_C 00:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I've re-opened the thread since they are appealing the block, which some might wish to comment on here (ANI) rather than there (their talk page). El_C 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

In their ban appeal they accuse others of saying things that no one did at any point (people were saying things like "shut up and accept you are wrong" and "stop pretending like you know anything") and misrepresent your block message (Even the message I received for this ban showed that the person banning me knew I am a logical and reasonable person), which in particular is especially funny considering you basically called them incompetent. I don't think anyone is considering reverting the block, but just in case, I'll point out that their motivation for becoming unblocked seems to be to continue beating the same dead horse that their whole account exists to beat. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I left a more polite comment explaining why their ban appeal won't work. I find it unlikely that they will be unblocked, but at least they will have a chance at composing a semi-decent unblock request. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree with StopSayingMyth. From a neutral perspective, this looks like a person that is simply asking for people to be more respectful with their use of words, but the people they're asking seem to be stuck on a power trip of sorts. I also find it very unnecessarily offensive to refer to religious beliefs as "myths", and this is coming from something that is agnostic. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing on that talk page which leads me to believe there's an asset to the encyclopedia lurking in their subconscious, and with exactly TWO live mainspace edits, it's not that there's any sort of track record to the contrary. Ravenswing 07:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• A case of WP:RGW with WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR issues — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

They think that Wikipedia's policies are anti-religion, that anyone who upholds them is anti-religion, and that they must tilt at whatever anti-religion windmills present themselves in response to such attacks. They can be polite and reasonable under other circumstances, as their Teahouse posts and post-block talk page posts show, but they show no sign of abandoning their quest, or of understanding why they can't go about it this way and still remain a part of the community. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see no compelling reason to contradict the exercise of administrative discretion by either El_C with regard to the initial block, nor Daniel Case with regard to declining the unblock request. This user is unambiguously WP:NOTHERE, by way of an extreme case of WP:RGW and WP:SPA (for a very dubious principle/semantic interpretation of a term of art, no less). This would be a big problem to their prospects of acclimating, understanding core policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT, and becoming a more generally productive editor, even if it were just a matter of doggedly returning to attempting to enforce their perspective on all content that they perceive to fall afoul of the hated term. But when you add in their pretty liberal use of invective to accuse their rhetorical opposition of all manner of failings, moral and otherwise, in a pretty paradigmatic refusal to WP:AGF, the argument for giving this user additional time and WP:ROPE is uncompelling. Certainly there's not enough here for the community to override the admins in question. In short: support block. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war at Self-determination

I'm not sure what is really going on here and don't wish to intervene because WP:ARBPIA has been mentioned. However, there appears to be an entrenched edit war going on. Could I request an uninvolved admin take a peek? WCM_email 06:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I think WP:AN3 would be a better place for this. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look, it appears to be principally an IP editor causing the issue but its been slow revert warring since 17 October. So doesn't really fit an AN3 report. And I don't have sufficient knowledge of WP:ARBPIA, hence I asked for an extra pair of eyes. WCM_email 11:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week for edit warring, and 30/500 applies as the edits clearly deal with ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and ECP-protected the page for 3 months, as the IP has changed dynamically a few times over the course of their edit warring, and the range seems wide enough such that a rangeblock would not be preferable (not an expert on rangeblocks though, so I'd appreciate it if someone more familiar with them could double-check that). Also noting for the record that the IP also included some personal attacks against Selfstudier in edit summaries, but the current block and page protection are likely all that is needed to prevent further disruption. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all. WCM_email 16:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Incessant bludgeoning and canvassing at AfD

• AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Alizade
• 90AA123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

90AA123, has been incessantly bludgeoning (with his signature of ETIBARMEMMEDOV and logged off) and canvassing in the abovementioned AfD. They shouldn't be creating articles in the topic area at all since it is under community restrictions, and they have thus far only created articles of entrepreneurs. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The user has indicated on the AfD that they won't be replying anymore. I don't know if this is appropriate after they have agreed to stop. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin had asked them to stop a week prior. They didn't listen then and suggest a p-block to allow the discussion to reach consensus. Star Mississippi 17:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This [238] looks like canvassing, and the whole of that particular AfD is bludgeoning start to finish. It is impossible to conduct a sensible AfD discussion in the face of behaviour of that sort. I would support a complete ban from AfD, but that's the tip of the iceberg. They are stretching my good faith to breaking point, and I find it very hard to believe there is no CoI editing going on. They are not a net positive to WP. Elemimele (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: I managed to miss that, apologies for that. A p-block is moot now that the AfD has been closed. I would be more supportive of a ban from deletion discussions if they continue the same conduct on other AfDs. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries, we can't keep up.

Feel free to flag any further problematic participation from this editor. Star Mississippi 14:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The user filed an undeletion request for Farid Alizade, which was declined by Jay. I don't know if this editor is finished with this yet. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

User with IP address 47.40.47.247 is vandalising several pages with the speedy deletion template

Hi there, haven't done this before so apologies if I mess something up, but I just noticed this IP address is vandalising a bunch of pages by putting a speedy delete template at the top with some nonsense reason. Could their edits be reviewed and the IP address' access be reviewed please? See below for a few examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazelwood_West_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=1161699174 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Gucci&diff=prev&oldid=1161698706 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Wick:_Chapter_4&diff=prev&oldid=1161698416 Cautilus (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I’d suggest AIV, if there’d been appropriate warnings on the talk page. Unless someone is willing to throw WP:IAR to the wall here, grab a few Vandalism Templates (1, 2, 3, 4, possibly this one too), and well, have a blast! Ehheh! MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the IP, deleted the vandalism draft. When you publish a draft like that, warning templates are unnecessary. Courcelles (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for LTA sockpuppet vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

09fenlon.l

Fuerdai sleeper, harassing me on their talk page. -- Prodraxis^talk_contribs (she/her) 14:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please block Harushiga

The user User:Harushiga is just a really rollback button abuser. Please indef block him so I can rest in peace. 88.229.247.248 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We need diffs to look at this. Also, if you use useful edit summaries you're far less likely to get reverted. — Trey Maturin™ 17:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the filer for block evasion, but I lack competence to understand whether their edits in the articles are good. Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And they are somehow related with the topic just above. Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a long term issue. I don't remember the sockmaster off the top of my head. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history, the IP had exactly ONE edit reverted by Harushiga, and that edit was posted without edit summary or explanation. The block evasion aside, the OP complaint is spurious. Ravenswing 18:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

They've had a lot more reverted on a lot more IPs. They're good for a few spurious AIV reports daily too. They also make accounts with Harushiga's name included. They've done this with other editors as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Can confirm. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hyundai Harushiga and Turbo Harushiga among others. The car theme is common too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget this account with two REVDELed edits and an offensive username! QuicoleJR (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Possibly related Turkish IPs (Istanbul) editing the same articles earlier:

• 88.235.137.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • Blocked yesterday by Discospinster
• 85.97.46.201 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • Briefly blocked by Ponyo for block evasion.
• 88.237.21.118 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • no blocks or warnings
• 88.243.174.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 95.15.74.101 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • one warning, no block
  • created Draft:SEAT IRyS
• 85.101.203.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Like Ymblanter, I don't know enough about cars to tell which edits are valid.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Their IP range is too dynamic to block effectively, but they stick out like a sore thumb due to trolling and general incompetence. Just block (with talk page access revoked) and roll back their edits.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

User:EternalTempest

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

This is clearly a content issue, but why I posted here is because really it's turned into an edit-war from the page history at Elstree, page history you might see what I mean. Also at Borehamwood which EternalTempest has edited, I don't see how the cite links he added are viable or useful cites. They seems rather irksome to use. I tried to be patient here, but really don't want to deal with the issue or upset people. There maybe issues with lots of other articles he has edited, but I haven't looked at those. Maybe someone else can deal with EternalTempest and stop the silly edit-war, thanks. Govvy (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Slow edit war, I think is the name for it. There’s no 3RRs within 24 Hours, but definitely more than 3 revs for both Tempest, and Mike. Everything else on this, reeks of WP:DR territory. Talk page appears to be in use by both parties, so good start. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the links go to the 2021 Census data, which is, obviously, better than the 2011 Census, which is the reference you seem to prefer. If you're not able to access the data that's fine, but I have explained how and where it's located. It is openly available to anyone. You just need to go to the link I have provided and download the relevant excel file. Then, ctrl K 'Elstree' (much faster than scrolling down). I just put a slightly different page number so hopefully accessing the data will now be very easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalTempest (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I have been unable to verify any of the links that EternalTempest proposes. They lead you to what appears to be valid sources but none of the data they cite is in the sources. No amount of Ctrl-Ks (creating hyperlinks) or Ctrl-Fs have been successful. I would have to conclude that there is no competence here. Inomyabcs (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

2021 census data for religion at that ward level is obtainable from https://www.ons.gov.uk/datasets/TS031/editions/2021/versions/4 but only by changing settings, downloading a ~24 MB csv file and filtering. EternalTempest then calculates percentages to 0.01% (1:10,000 for populations of eg ~5000) and presents those, not the downloaded ONS counts, tabulating their comparison to national percentages. They then editorialise about the results as at Potters Bar#Demographics, As of the 2021 census, Potters Bar still had a Christian majority, making it more Christian than both England and Wales as a whole and the rest of Hertsmere. Potters Bar has a significant Jewish community and an Orthodox synagogue, but as a percentage of the overall population, the Jewish community, which numbers over 600, pales in comparison to every other settlement in Hertsmere, the most Jewish borough in the country. NebY (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How can you call a link where you do something like ctrl-k a citation? I am honestly myth'ed by EternalTempest editing. It makes it hard to know if you're trying to be legit or not. In the end it just feels disruptive. Govvy (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't have to but the openly available data is long (and comprehensive) and it is easier to ctrl k it. Just my advice.

Btw this is you admitting that the links provided DO include the statistics, which was your original bone of contention. You are now arguing that because it's a bit difficult to find (though pretty intuitive! it's the official Census site!) it... shouldn't count? I'm perplexed, honestly.

Just take the L and move on rather than suggesting I'm 'not being legit' for defending edits that I worked on about the place I grew up in and that you have - finally! - admitted were accurate and based on recent data. EternalTempest (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@EternalTempest: Nope, I didn't see any stats on those links, they don't work for me. I also accused you of edit-warring on Elstree, which you did do. Govvy (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, they work for other people in the thread, so clearly the issue is at your end.

I merely reverted changes to *my* edit where the reason for the revert given was 'link doesn't provide stats.' Link was altered to be more direct, thus solving the problem from where I stand. It takes two to edit-war. EternalTempest (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

More fundamentally, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, how is this obsessive detail even remotely encyclopedic? It reads to me as WP:advocacy. In the example cited, it is potentially antisemitic; in others, as feeding the Great Replacement conspiracy. The text that Neby reports is clearly a WP:synth violation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I should have said that, since the content dispute is repeated in a number of articles, the place to resolve it is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Religion at ward level, not here. If there is still a behavioural issue, then that is more for ANI to consider. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This is just absurd. For one, I am Jewish. There are also plenty of mainstream and Jewish press articles commenting on this very phenomenon albeit not going into the same level of detail for other religions. For example:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021#:~:text=The areas with the highest,2021 was Enfield (3.1%).

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/barnet-continues-to-have-largest-jewish-population-census-2021-confirms/

https://www.jpr.org.uk/reports/jews-britain-2021-first-results-census-england-and-wales

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/number-of-people-identifying-as-ethnically-jewish-doubles-in-last-decade-6cETDkVRTDwslmqyAC8NK5

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-723634

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/boundary-changes-could-see-significant-changes-to-seats-that-are-home-to-uk-jewish-communities-1.517495 EternalTempest (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. It seems as though User:JMF couldn't think of a way to logically refute your comment, so they've resorted to using an ad hominem response. This absurd modern convention where people that begin to lose an argument feel the need to resort to using words meant to intimidate, such as "racist", "Xenophobe", "bigot", etc, really needs to stop; It has no place in a forum like this.. Unless there is a VERY clear motive for their use, we should avoid their use entirely. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Jewish East London" (1899)

As I've said already, discussion of what content is appropriate for UK settlement articles belongs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography and I will not continue a debate about content here at ANI. But just so that a world-wide audience can see what the fuss is about, may I draw attention to this map (published 1901) of "Jewish East London" and the anti-semitic legislation that followed?

"A salutary reminder to approach maps with caution: those that claim a statistical basis are not necessarily neutral. This map illustrates the density of the Jewish population in London's East End in 1899, but by focusing on a narrow area of the capital and using heavily nuanced colour-coding, it contrives to be alarmist without actually distorting the underlying data." Bryars & Harper 2014, 22.

— Cornell University Library, Digital Collections[239]

Analysis of wards by Jewish population is probably unlikely to lead to an outbreak of overt anti-semitism but I doubt you could say the same about the same analysis by Muslim population.

I will copy this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Religion at ward level, where the content dispute can better be resolved. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sir, that was 1901. As you yourself say, this is not going to be the case in 2023. I appreciate your concern on our behalf but as demonstrated, we are publishing this data in our own periodicals.

As for the 'what is appropriate for the UK,' I cede to your expertise. EternalTempest (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

EternalTempest; what we anonymous editors declare about ourselves doesn't really matter. We could claim anything, and false-flag claims are as feasible here as on Twitter. Saying you're Jewish can't justify phrasing or give anyone the authority to speak for Jews here ("on our behalf", "we are publishing", "our own periodicals").

On Wikipedia, we avoid editorialising and framing; see for example MOS:EDITORIAL (persuasive writing approach is also against the Wikipedia:No original research policy (Wikipedia does not try to steer the reader to a particular interpretation or conclusion) ... editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources) and WP:SYNTH. There are plenty of good reasons for that, including the avoidance of potentially "dog-whistle" or provocative phrasing such as "As of the 2021 census, Potters Bar still had a Christian majority", from which the reader can take "so far, but under threat", and pales in comparison, which can be read as an adroit reminder of the "swarthy jew". NebY (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So reword the editorial.

Yes, I'm aware I could be anyone, hence why I posted 5 or 6 detailed Jewish news articles with the same stats. You don't have to take my word for it, but we (Jews) do care and are interested. If the Jewish News is happy to post this data, which it is, and no one complains, which they don't, perhaps it is demonstrable that, Jewish or not (and I am), I am correct that this is not something the Jewish community sees as worrisome and is in fact something the Jewish community finds fascinating and revels in publicising.

But again, please, reword at your discretion. IIRC no one has thus far tried to. EternalTempest (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Also Jewish or not, it is 2023, and that was 1901, and as the OP admitted, it's simply not a likely outcome today. EternalTempest (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute. Take it to WikiProject UK geography. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

NOTHERE Vuzorg

Vuzorg (talk · contribs) has been warned many times on their talkpage but continues to edit in a disruptive manner. Its NOTHERE at this point. Semsûrî (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this might be better for WP:DR or WP:AIV, but if you want the discussion here that's fine. Could you give more context on the situation? Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Every now and then they disrupt articles and remove info that is based on RS. Their main edits pertain to Zazas and removing any connection this group has to Kurds. This edit and its edit summary illustrates it well [240]. Beside the personal attack, they did not even bother to check the reference or just removed the info because they didn't like it. They've also deemed all references that I've used on these topics (which in most cases are academic references) as "Kurdish sources" which is absurd. [241] Semsûrî (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I see. This does seem like it could be a long-term behavior issue. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Successive disruptive edits from multiple IP addresses (I assume they're from the same host) on Taylor Swift-related articles [242] [243] [244] [245] [246]. I think we should block these IPs' host, or semi-protect the articles for a few days. Ippantekina (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

/64 blocked 60 hours. Next time, though, please refer reports concerning "IP vandalism" to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks. El_C 02:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is my first time dealing with such case so for the next time onwards I'd proceed accordingly at WP:AIV. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism by A strategy and ans lekhont

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I reverted one edit in what I believe to have been a diplomatic manner and now this user, A strategy and ans lekhont (talk · contribs) has made multiple personal attacks to me, attempted to vandalize my User page (see edit filter), filed a false false positive for that edit filter, and while I am writing this, made a death threat to me. PriusGod (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's enough of that. Blocked indef. And talk page access removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated. PriusGod (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by another IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

186.31.150.226 has left edit summaries of personal attacks and adding unsourced material to multiple pages. [1] Dinoz1 (chat?) (he/him) 15:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked and REVDELLED EvergreenFir (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Khalepa and edits in Ukrainian articles

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

The user is not extended confirmed and therefore may not edit articles related to Russian-Ukrainian conflict. They have been given an alert and after that warned. (I warned them for the second time now since they were edit-warring in Oleg Sentsov). They never reacted (in fact, I do not think they ever used a talk page), and recently they turned to very doubtful moves without any discussion. They apparently have an opinion, which was introduced on Wikipedia by a bunch of now blocked socks, that everything related to Ukraine should have a name which conforms to WP:UKR and not to WP:COMMON. Moves of artyicles like Mykola Khvylyovy is disruptive and should not be performed without discussion. A block is probably needed. Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem like you’ve done your homework on this already, so WP:AE might be the venue you’re after? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we need AE for a user with 112 edits? Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s very possible that I don’t know something in policy, but to my knowledge, if it’s restriction violations in an area that ArbCom’s pulled the rug around (so to speak), can’t an admin throw sanctions? And would it not go to AE, if you’re not a mop-holder (or, in your fair case, recluse from dragging yourself into a mess, by pushing sanctions in that area)?

At the risk of me sounding like The fresh prince of Bell-end, I can only improve my knowledge, if I know what I’ve got wrong, yes?

My lack of knowledge aside, and to keep the ANI on track, Toollabs pulls 136 edits for Khalepa, so he is, indeed, not ECP, as Blanter correctly notes. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking these are community-imposed general sanctions (not AE sanctions), though I can probably make a case for AE imposed sanctions in the area of Eastern Europe. Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I see that Vasiliy Lomachenko had a RM and the result was not move, but the POV pusher moved it anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyone? Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Talk pages are not optional, and this disruptive behavior ends here. Courcelles (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Triantares' conduct relating to Elive

Triantares (talk · contribs) almost certainly has a conflict of interest with Elive as both a forum administrator and contributor to software for Elive. Unrelated to this however since that topic should be brought to WP:COIN (which it was), the user comes off as both super defensive and combative on anything relating to this topic.

The user seems insistent that I'm trying to slander them or Elive because I missed a comment they made on Elive's third deletion nomination relating to the fact that an admin mentioned that the page was copied from another wiki; they corrected said admin stating that it came from Simple and not the wiki in question, however I missed this comment and mentioned on Elive's talk page about the wiki, which they then responded mentioning the original comment they made. I then apologised for this multiple times (see [247] and [248]) but the user is still, for some reason, acting quite uncivil (at least in my eyes). I decided to look into this and it seems they have been uncivil towards others too and (as far as I'm aware) they don't seem to be exercising WP:AGF at all; quotes mentioned below (of which the last 3 were directed towards me).

(diff 1157177913)

As to you marking multiple references with 'self published?': You are so obviously wrong that I wonder if you even made an effort to open and look through them. Adding a question mark does not remove the responsibility for the suggestion made there.

What I do with my time and when, is none of your business and it is certainly not up to you to use that as any sort of argument or qualification.

(diff 1157266559)

I'm Dutch so unlike German, English or French speakers, I don't politely beat around the bush and I don't mince words.

(diff 1161684848):

BTW This looks like an obvious ploy to move away from the previous slanderous comment of yours in regard to a "ripoff" of another text.

(diff 1161765751):

Believe me, I'm totally calm and certainly not angry, combative or vindictive in any way but I would recommend that you yourself read that WP:AGF a tad more carefully than you did the mentioned AfD and stop throwing dirt around in the hope that it will stick.

(diff 1161605971)

I'm not saying you should've read my statement but that you should at least do simple homework before slandering others. It makes you look biased at best or stupid at worst.

As far as I can tell, they seem quite uninterested in being civil (after being apologised to and being made aware of AGF twice [see above links 1 and 2], they're still under the idea that I'm under an attempt to "slander" them) and given that they've had this behaviour towards multiple users, I felt that it'd be worth mentioning here. Dawnbails (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll be short, pointy and blunt here so as to avoid a wall of yes/no arguments:

1. Half of the above comments were in reply to an editor who's been reported here Disruptive editing by Yae4 and has since resigned.

A role @Dawnbails apparently has taken on to to continue on in regard to the Elive article and my person.

2. "appreciating information" is rather flimsy as an apology, especially where the allegation was very clearly worded with "ripoff", never corroborated and never explicitly retracted.

3. The COI notice ("unrelated" but mentioned anyway) was a nomination by the same resigned disruptive editor @Yae4to whom I've stated my stance on COI several times.

I find the practice of simply throwing some uncorroborated WP:XYZ labels at someone as a threat and then expecting an effort to prove innocence, quite annoying and a waste of my time. Triantares (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What role have I "taken on" in regards to said editor? I have no relation to Yae4 whatsoever and I simply enjoy technology related topics. I noticed this article a while back while looking for topics to improve on. The issue is that you're being uncivil in regards to the topic of Elive to anyone who simply challenges anything related to or within the article. Just because the editor that you also made uncivil comments towards has resigned and been reported for their own issues doesn't make your comments not uncivil nor does it make their opinions nonexistent. I made it clear twice that I did not notice your original comment and apologised for doing so, but you're still being uncivil about it. Never have I asked you to "prove innocence," I've simply asked you to understand what good faith is, but you still continued to make subtle jabs towards me over a comment I made on the talk page of Elive that had little relation to my question about whether or not you were willing to declare a connection to Elive. Dawnbails (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviors from Gilbertstry

Gilbertstry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user Gilbertstry (talk · contribs · count) is undoing my edits on the Spain article without giving any justification, promoting edit wars for no reason and even misuses the edit summary to make juvenile provocations. Chronus (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I've notified Gilbertstry about this thread, as required. Please remember to do this in the future. Woodroar (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Woodroar Thank you. Chronus (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Can you see this? Chronus (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I can’t quite figure out who they are, but tagging themselves as a sockpuppet and edit warring is enough to just call it trolling even if I can’t discern the puppeteer. Blocked. Courcelles (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles Thank you! Chronus (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Karnataka nominated a CSS page in their userspace for deletion. I've closed as speedy delete, but can't tag because it's interface protected. Thank you, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 16:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Should be all set. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obvious WP:SPA/WP:NOTHERE in User:ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk · contribs) Just check the contribution history and the talk page. There's 4 warnings today for the insertion of improper entries and spam references. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE is unbelievably not true - since the article's I've contributed to History of schizophrenia look at the additions there, Top contributors to climate change - there was a problem there but the situation is now resolved to a compromise - I didn't revert the reverting editors work and accepted their changes - my work is still in that article. Astrobiology the link CH3 pertains to the first discovery of the carbon molecule by James Webb telescope which is competely relevant and necessary in that article. I don't know about the 1st link SPA. I haven't been editing for much time, HEADBOMB simply has made a mistake with the criticism I think or otherwise I would be able to detect his contrary argument. It is an abuse that I have to defend myself here, that is what I feel considering my genuine intention to improve the encylopedia and people's lives, to see a completely irrational disciplinary hearing at this time. ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The username is ridiculous, and given the above disruption, is running afoul of WP:UNCONF. Zaathras (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah well that wasn't an intended choice so I don't think the fact of my choice should indicate the necessity of the consequences. I could just change the name surely, as I'm indifferent - and what it has to do with my ability to change article it is a triviality I think. ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend you stop by the rename request form before editing further, as your current username is disruptive due to its length and complexity, and will likely be taken as evidence that you're here to disrupt the encyclopedia rather than improve it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay I'll do that ASAP thanks for the pointer. ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Returning to the initial problems - Headbomb arrived at here from Astrobiology and there he has reverted my addition again, but the second reversion is completely unnecessary - his 1st reversion I accept completely his argument as the inline cites are out-of-place - but his second reversion has no reason for the reversion CH3 is a legitimate addition as the sources show - is a factor of astrobiology I can't understand his reasons for complaint here - at least as his choice of reversion at astrobiology would indicate the validity of his argument against me - and also because the other editors are free to complain about my efforts at History of Schizophrenia and Top contributors to climate change but they haven't done anything currently. I think Headbomb is trolling astronomically exaggerating the problem. Look at version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Top_contributors_to_climate_change&oldid=1162172574 as MrOllie caused in the article by reverting "and sulfur hexafluoride[3] (25,200 [1])[1]" is not possible as an article choice, but he proceeded to do so. I couldn't sit and allow the change to stay as it was obviously. No-one complained about MrOllie, I didn't complain because I am not a vindictive individual, although his thoughtlessness caused an unnecessary problem to me and anyone reading the article. There is no defence against irrationality and I don't provide one if it the case that it is the situation here. ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

My lack of further input at this page (and infact at any page) is not due to my ignoring or a sinister brooding presence - it is in infact because I have gone to sleep in the real world. I will of course primarily attend to the change of name issue when active in wikipedia world again. Bonne nuit in this place (and hello to my rest in another). ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Please note that the editor is questions was indeffed on Spanish Wikipedia for violating their username standards, and that despite their indication that they would request a username change "ASAP", I see no indication that they have made any effort to do so, either at WP:CHU or globally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Username, NOTHERE, take your pick. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

10mmsocket violating multiple conduct guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Although I realize it is recommended to first address the issue on the user's talk page, I do not believe the discussion would make any difference given that 10mmsocket lists paid editors under a list of 'Things I Loath'. [249]

10mmsocket came across the CharterUP article that I submitted while he was "vandal patrolling" for articles with contributions from those with a COI. I disclosed my relationship to the subject of the article on my userpage before I touched the content itself.

Now that CharterUP and a related company, Shofur are being discussed for deletion, 10mmsocket has violated multiple conduct guidelines on the deletion discussions and within the CharterUP article itself.

I am listing the violations, with diffs and refs, below:

1. 10mmsocket has failed to assume good faith about my contributions, and has taken my words out of context and misrepresented my comments.[250]
2. Don't disrupt to make a point: 10mmsocket add a section that does not meet Wikipedia content guidelines in order to make a point about the article being "pure-puffery" due to the contributions from a paid editor. [251]
3. Assume good faith/Don't bite the newcomers: 10mmsocket seems to be letting his loathing of paid editors get in the way of these two core behavioral guidelines, as other users have pointed out in the CharterUP deletion discussion. [252]
4. Unsure of exact policy, 10mmsocket accused me of writing/being involved in an article while the history will clearly show I have never made any contributions or edits. (10mmsocket)
5. I am unsure which direct policy or guideline this behavior would apply, but 10mmsocket has also pressured me to withdraw the article by telling me it has been discredited and has no place on Wikipedia.[253]

Michellecharterup (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced all the ref tags in your report to make it easier to read. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I see poor behaviour on both sides here. Wikipedia is not meant for advertising, and as a paid editor, you should really put more effort into writing in a balanced fashion, to make sure you do not take up precious time from volunteers. For 1) This was likely in response to this, which seems to exaggerate your statement. For 2) that section is worrisome; 10mmsocket should know better than to add quotes from user-generated websites. Per WP:CONTROVERSY, it's better not to have a separate section for this anyway. It's usually better to stubify than to make similar mistakes in non-neutrality. 3) Dr Vulpes pointed out the need to not bite newcomers; while I don't see anything sanctionable, I would hope 10mm takes this to heart. Of course, fixing PE articles comes with a cost (Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free), but civility does not hurt. 4) They have withdrawn that statement 5) I'm not sure what 10mmsocket meant by "withdrawing" the article, but it would be good for you to withdraw from the discussion at this point, to ensure you're not doing civil WP:bludgeoning.

I suggest we end this with a small trout to 10mmsocket (combatting neutrality issues from paid editing is always appreciated, but please do so within Wikipedia's guidelines), and Michelle, please be more mindful of community time, and learn to edit articles where you have no involvement to learn about how to edit neutrally. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Diet trout small or Template:Minnow, if anybody decides to pursue such a suggestion on Socket. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 18:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I can now see that the comment I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shofur was a mistake and I am very happy to withdraw that (I have struck it out, but am equally happy for it to be deleted / removed from the page edit log. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I really do not like paid editing and have called it out a number of times in the past. But I have never come across a paid editor who has so vehemently tried to defend their actions. If that has come across as too robust in that case then I apologise for the tone used on occasion. Some of my past interactions with paid editors (one in the past couple of weeks ago in fact - I might be able to find in my contribution history) is to encourage them to stop editing the article and instead post on the article's talk page requesting others do the update. That's a way in which paid-for editing is tolerable. I am not a single purpose editor who focuses on just one article. I dip in and out of new page patrolling, anti-vandal / anti-spam patrolling of new users (always trying to jump in with a welcome message rather than a stark warning for a first offence, and sometimes even an offer to help). I confess that I love sockpuppet hunting, but equally I also have a few categories of articles that I like to maintain and improve (not just patrol) such as UK trains, all the UK emergency services, and a few UK towns and cities. I have positive interactions with a number of other editors and admins and I am rarely (if ever) called out for bad behaviour. Again, if I overstepped a bit in this instance with this paid-for WP:SPA then I am happy to apologise, step away and let the AfD run its course. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the apology! Many of us have been carried away a little while 'defending' Wikipedia, and as you say, stepping away (ideally with a nice cuppa), and having the community resolve it, works well. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind reply. I'm very glad to see she has now been blocked, but there is still a lesson there for me - be nice to everyone, even corporate spammers whose demise you are seeking to bring about. Thanks again. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Michellecharterup Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing says you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. A few hours ago, after opening this section, you edited the article directly, including changing "The CharterUP marketplace was created with the goal of raising the standard of service in the industry" (which you'd inserted on 22 June[254]) to "The CharterUP marketplace was created with the goal of adding consumer protections and standardizing the level of service in the industry."(new text underlined)[255] Your edit summary was "Attempted POV edits to neutralize language" but that addition of "consumer protections" looks promotional. Why are you still doing this? NebY (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I can’t come up with a single good reason not to just indef Michellecharterup for spamming. Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Also after opening this ANI section, Michellecharterup added the exculpatory "Although online marketplaces attempt to dissolve disputes between third-party service providers and customers, customers still accept some risk when using a platform like CharterUP." It remains the closing text of the article, without a reference. NebY (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for spamming. Full rationale here. Courcelles (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.