Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valereee (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 10 April 2024 (→‎Unarchived: User on a deletion spree: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Follow up from VPM

    Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps

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

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

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

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

    • How anyone can read Rachel Helps (BYU)'s user page (even before recent edits) and say her CoI is "undisclosed " beggars belief. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There seems to be some idea (such as advanced by Andy above) that merely disclosing a COI absolves you of any possible infractions; that is not the case, as the evidence at the VPM discussion amply demonstrates. There's apparent evidence of off-wiki coordination that obfuscates COI editing. I see the concern that there are much worse offenders here, and Helps' self-identification makes picking out the COI edits that much easier... but that doesn't materially change the problem, discussed at length in the wider VPM thread, that Helps and similar editors have materially distorted and overemphasized coverage of LDS topics in ways that are not keeping with due weight. This is probably an issue with a lot of GLAM/WIR stuff, so I'm not surprised Andy is circling the wagons, but this is a pretty egregious example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overwhelming Support. WP:COI editing is bad enough, but considering that WiR is involved and that the COI violations are related to religion (which is already a subject that requires great care to maintain NPOV), Helps should absolutely be topic banned from LDS articles. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • And to further comment on this, these violations seem to be contrary to the purpose of WiR, which is for an existing editor to "accept a placement with an institution to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that institution," not to have an person with existing ties to the institution to "facilitate" Wikipedia articles on their institution
      vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, the disregard and disrespect this paid editor has for our COI expectations is staggering. The attitude is not that they should follow best practices, its that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted and permitted in infinite quantities. An example of this attitude: "Also, if something is "strongly discouraged," it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule."[1] So lets do what we have to do and enforce our community expectations, otherwise people will continue to ignore and disrespect "A rule that can't be enforced" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do see violations of COI policies but they are not an end in themselves and exist to protect the reliability of our content. So, can I get some examples of shoddy content being injected into our articles by Rachel Helps? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      jps wrote in the linked discussion,

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

      Some diffs are in order? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I listed diffs in that thread. Happy to list them again, but it may be a bit repetitive. Also, you can check my article space edit history from today as I’ve begun the long process of dealing with the fallout and that history may be illustrative. jps (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Apparently Airship was posting this while I was posting my disagreement with the evidence presented in the other thread. Yes, she seems to have written an article about an (apparently notable) co-author. More than half the evidence presented is about other editors (how dare she help newbies?). There have been previous discussions about her editing, and they've agreed that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board applies. She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things. More generally, I think that much of this is based on fear of religious editors. For example: She is accused of – over the course of 18 years and nearly 10,000 edits – writing two (2) articles that some editors (including me) think she might be too close to the subject to do so independently, and that it would have been more appropriate to send through WP:AFC. That's 4% of her article creations. Banning someone for a procedural error in 4% of contributions is not a proportional response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know it should be 100% through AfC right? "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" Thats incredibly damning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't agree that articles she needed to send articles such as Stretch Armstrong (ska band) and List of inmates of Topaz War Relocation Center and Anarchism and Esperanto and Hidden Figures (picture book) through AFC. Can you think of any reason why, e.g., she should consider herself to have a conflict of interest with a Japanese interment camp that was closed before she was born, then do please explain that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because she was paid to make them. Thats a direct financial COI. I didn't say she needed to send the articles to AfC, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing, a couple of things: the co-author is also a Master's thesis supervisor, which isn't great; as there is precisely one "newbie" named in my analysis (the others being employees, editors with extensive COI history, and a bureaucraat currently at ArbCom for a CoI issue), I would ask you to consider your words more carefully. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Redacted). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A large proportion of our articles on universities and their staff are probably heavily edited by external relations offices and staff of the organisation, but they generally do it very professionally, under the radar. If we nobble this editor, we need, in fairness, to do the same to all those others too. But the articles are often accurate and well-written (because they've been written by someone who actually knows what they're talking about). Apply COI rules with caution lest you end up with an encyclopaedia written entirely by clueless people using out-of-date sources. Remember, most academic/institutional COI editing won't be reported because the person who knows (a) that the University of Somewhere's article is edited mostly by JSomeone, and (b) that the public relations officer happens to be called John Someone, can't actually do anything about it without outing themselves as another staff-member, and DOXing Dr Someone. Elemimele (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this argument the equivalent of saying "If the cops don't have the knowledge and resources to give every single speeder a speeding ticket then nobody should get a speeding ticket"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's like saying that if absolutely everyone is speeding down a particular bit of road, then maybe something's wrong with the speed-limit (or the overall approach to its enforcement) and issuing one ticket won't solve the problem. Our COI policy is wildly naive, and particularly good at punishing those who admit their COI rather than those who just deny everything. Elemimele (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But your argument isn't that everyone is speeding, your argument is that most roads have been sped on. Do you really think that "absolutely everyone" is doing egregious undisclosed COI editing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you happen to see any other paid contributors, grandly titled "Wikipedians-in-Residence" and promoted by the WMF as an example of Wikimedia-public relations, who undermine COI to this extent, give me a ping and I'll certainly !vote to "nobble" them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobble is actually a word, huh. Also, another day, another Primefac LDSuppression — when will it end? El_C 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness he's also been taking action to resolve these COI issues off-wiki, see discussion on his talk page. Levivich (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things.
    Contrast this with her COI declarations:
    However, curators and other librarians sometimes request that I work on certain pages. ...
    One of my students created the page for James Goldberg at the request of a curator, in conjunction with the library acquiring his personal papers. I assigned this to one of my students rather than myself because I know James personally. ...
    When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. ...
    At the request of one of my curator colleagues, I improved the page for Glen Nelson. ...
    I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon. I participate in this community of Mormon artists. Their shows have featured work by artists whose pages I have worked on for work, for example, Matt Page (artist), whose page I created when our 21st-century curator requested that I work on his page after acquiring some of his personal papers. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People make suggestions for topics; sometimes she agrees. So? People ask me to make edits, too; sometimes I grant their requests, too. I'd bet that if people in your life know you edit Wikipedia, that you also get such requests. That's not a conflict of interest.
    I'd also like you to think about what I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon means. It means she gives money to them, not the other way around. Shall we ban Wikipedia editors who donate to the WMF or one of the affiliates from editing anything in Category:Wikipedia? Shall we tell editors that if they buy Girl Scout cookies, they can't edit Girl Scouts of the USA? Kick all the devs out of the open-source articles? Merely being a minor donor or a minor customer is not automatically a conflict of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you just...willfully ignoring all context now? Because this is starting to look like bikesheddy obstructionist nitpicking for the sake of...who knows?
    Here we have an employer requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer, because Helps is officially employed in a WP liaison capacity with that employer. Helps says she fulfills some of these requests. All of this is above-board PAID (but not necessarily COI) editing and is utterly different from your hypothetical of some random person suggesting you write about some topic neither of you has a COI with. It also happens to contradict your claim that Helps says BYU doesn't choose topics for her to write about, which wouldn't actually even be a problem if those topics weren't connected to her or BYU (and I'm not alleging they are!).
    Your second paragraph is somehow even more of a strawman. Nowhere in the comment above did I allege Helps has a COI with any of those examples of employer-requested editing, and certainly nowhere did I suggest editors can't edit on things they've ever spent any amount of money on. It's almost like you are replying to some synthesis of my comments in this thread, but I know that can't be true because if you had actually read my one other substantive comment in this ANI discussion you wouldn't have made that ridiculous comparison to Girl Scout Cookies in the first place when it's abundantly clear Helps' COI with ARCH-HIVE goes way beyond simply donating to them on Patreon. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay my editing experience with WhatamIdoing has been — their Wikipedia editing style comes across as inexplicably argumentative or contrarian on most any topic. I don't recall if they eventually come around or change their mind, such as after somehow ferreting out a truth during a particular confrontation or argument. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we have an employer requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer:
    No, we don't. Here we have colleagues with no authority over her whatsoever, often from unrelated departments, who think they've identified a cool subject for Wikipedia, chosen for their relevance to the colleagues' own interests and activities, and an employer who thinks Wikipedia is cool enough that they let her spend part of her work time making that information freely available to the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you really suggesting someone whose position is "Coordinator of Wikipedia Initiatives at the Harold B. Lee Library" is being paid to edit in whatever topic areas they want with no expectation from the university that this work ever ought to benefit the university or further the interests of its owner? Or that a BYU employee requesting an article on a former BYU professor after the employee helped procure some of that professor's own works for BYU's collection, might be making this request on behalf of BYU as part of their job?
    Do you think, in the above example, that someone serving in an official, Wikipedia-supported expert editing instructor position would believe COI from their extensive personal relationship with the subject is eliminated by assigning that article creation request to their own BYU employees? JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in response to ping: frankly, I haven't read the mountain of evidence in enough detail to !vote, but I don't think this problem is limited to a single editor. We may need to take a more holistic approach rather than hoping that removing one person will make everything right. Certes (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and agree with Certes above that this is only part of the problem. I became aware of the BYU walled garden of sources, awards, and editors through the Nihonjoe ANI discussion and subsequent Arbcom case. Looking at their edits, I first noticed the problematic editing and undisclosed COI of User:Thmazing, who will warrant an ANI section on their own. But other names which kept popping up where [User:Hydrangeans], who keeps denying the obvious COI issues, and Rachel Helps (and her other account) and her large number of paid BYU students (who list her as their employer).
    When I look at an article like Second Nephi, completely rewritten by these editors over the last few months[2] (apart from [Hydrangeans] and Rachel Helps, I count 3 other paid BYU editors there): the page is expanded, but hardly improved. Claims like "J.N. Washburn, an independent scholar, cites that 199 of 433 verses from Isaiah appear with the same wording and proposes that Joseph Smith used the King James Bible version whenever it was close enough to the original meaning of the plates he was said to be translating and used the new translation when meaning differed" not only treat the "he find some old plates he translated" as truth, but try to claim that "independent" scholars support this, even though Jesse Nile Washburn was a LDS missionary who had studied at BYU before he published his books on Mormonism, so no idea what's "independent" about him. The whole article, just like most articles rewritten by Rachel Helps and her employees, are written from a distinctly in-universe, uncritical perspective.
    For some reason she is very reluctant to note her COI on the talk page of these articles, insisting that the declaration on her user page is sufficient. She also takes it upon herself to remove critical tags from the pages, e.g. here or here, or to remove correct[3][4] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[5]. A typical edit is something like this, supposedy "more detail for the naturalistic explanation section" but in reality removing two of the four sources and changing the more general claim about the non-religious origin of some Mormon belief to a much more LDS-friendly version. Just some examples from her 100 most recent mainspace edits... Fram (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    *Support per Fram's evidence and others. I should note the above mentioned Second Nephi refers to another "independent scholar" (Matthew Nickerson) and then cites an article that appeared in a journal published by BYU. I would also hope that if a ban is enacted, it explicitly covers the Association for Mormon Letters and related topics, including fellow members, per the information provided in the Village Pump thread. Jessintime (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm striking my support for this topic ban (you can call me neutral I guess) though I still support the one for Thmazing below. Jessintime (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, not because Rachel Helps has undisclosed COI (she discloses BYU and AML on her userpage), but because she helped other editors with undisclosed COI (e.g. BYU, AML) make undisclosed COI edits, and did things like nominate their articles to DYK, or move their articles to mainspace. The diffs are at WP:VPM. I also agree with Certes that this problem is broader and includes the editors who have/had undisclosed COIs, but that doesn't absolve Ms. Helps of her role in what now seems to be an actual conspiracy of AML people to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their work, and by extension their religion, by using a combination of undisclosed accounts and paid BYU editors. The unfortunate thing is that if everybody affiliated with AML had just disclosed it, there wouldn't really have been a problem... except they would have had to wait for editors without COI to do things like approve drafts, but I don't get why that would have been a problem. Undisclosed COI editing is a problem even if it's good undisclosed COI editing because it undermines trust. It's really quite dangerous to the mission of an encyclopedia anyone can edit: the whole venture rests on the belief that editors will follow "the honor system" and either avoid or be transparent about their COIs. Finally, a note to anyone commenting: If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the reasons I still support a full TBAN and not a lesser sanction is that Rachel Helps has been editing longer than I have. And unlike me, she was paid to do it. If she cannot learn in eight years of paid editing what I learned in five years of volunteer editing in my spare time, then I'm not sure there is much hope here. She's not new at this, and this isn't the first time these problems have come up. I'd have more sympathy if she had less experience or if this wasn't a repeat issue. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On one hand, I'd support a topic ban on the paid student employees. Certainly going forward that's what I think is best (employees of the BYU WiR should not edit articles related to Mormonism... let them do that on their own time), but then TBANing the WiR should be sufficient to prevent problems with student employees in the future (and per her note below, she is already reassigning them to other topics).
    On the other hand, I don't like the idea of sanctioning any of the student employees because they were "just following orders," and if their orders were different, they'd have followed the different orders, so I don't view the student employees as being culpable or even being able to act independently of their supervisor (the WiR), I see them as proxies/meatpuppet accounts except they understandably would think their proxying was OK because it was directed and supervised by a WiR. So I think I come down on the side of giving students a pass for past policy/guideline violations as long as there are clear guardrails for the future. Levivich (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support with regret. I really wish this could be done differently, but I think things have come to a head now and there may be no way to fix it without this kind of drastic approach. I tried to have a conversation yesterday with Rachel about improving her sourcing guideline, and I think that she is likely trying her best to act in good faith, but she is well past being able to collaborate with those who are going to question the WP:FRINGE nature of the claims that many apologists for the Mormon religion continue to make about their holy books. I could handle that (indeed, we see that sort of issue a lot here) if it was not also coupled with institutional support from Wikipedia as well as BYU in a way that I think was never done properly. If we are going to pay students to edit Wikipedia, they ought to be allowed to edit it freely. BYU students are at a risk in being active here. If I saw one of them make an edit that looked like apostasy, I could report them to their stake or bishop or the school itself and they could be found in violation of the strict honor code and expelled. I don't think we have thought clearly about what that means given the openness of this website and the unusual closed-ness of the BYU system. For the benefit of all involved, it is probably best that this partnership be ended with a clean break. jps (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Rachel Helps has now disclosed a massive amount of COI on her user page. Given how extensive and egregious it is, as well as her repeated emphasizing that she uses her personal account to publish articles she feels would be in violation of PAID if published from her BYU account, I get the impression that she still does not understand what it means to have a COI and how that should impact her editing. Initially this put her actions in a slightly better light to me, since it seemed many of these violations were done in mostly good faith and simply weren't recognized by her to be COI (or at least not that big of a COI, which is more of an institutional problem), rather than intentional concealment of edits she knew weren't kosher. I would have been satisfied with a promise to avoid editing or directing others to edit articles where there is even a whiff of apparent COI and an agreement to limit LDS-universe sourcing. However, reading this dissembling exchange she had on her personal account talkpage with an NPPer regarding COI and blatant PROMO for ARCH-HIVE, I have a hard time believing no deceit has occurred:

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

      This was in Feb 2022, well after she had started writing blog posts and participating in exhibitions for the group, and well after she served on an AML judging committee the same year ARCH-HIVE won an award. This led me to look into some other potential COI edits involving authors she has reviewed for the AML: Dean Hughes, whose wiki page has been edited extensively by Helps' student Skyes(BYU) (66 major edits, 8000+ bytes added, including bibliography entry for the book Helps reviewed); D. J. Butler, to whose bibliography Helps added the book she judged, sourced to an AML announcement by her colleague, and to which Skyes(BYU) added 11 major edits; and Steven L. Peck, 85% of whose page was written by Helps between 2017 and 2023. I'm sure I could go on. Incidentally, pretty much all of these pages have also been edited by Thmazing (AML president) and NihonJoe (ArbCom case)...
      All of this goes well beyond what we could reasonably expect even a novice editor to understand are COI edits, let alone someone in a paid position of authority who is mentoring other paid employees of BYU on how to edit wikipedia articles! Honestly I think ArbCom might be the next place to go given the amount of promotion of minor Mormon contemporary authors by what seems to be a heavily interconnected group of BYU-associated editors with un- or under-declared COIs. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground. This will happen as long as anonymous editing is allowed on Wikipedia. But what I think is far more important for determining a possible topic ban for myself and my team is the quality of my edits in the topics the ban is aimed at covering. I believe an underlying assumption is that since I work for the BYU Library, I wouldn't say bad things about Mormonism (broadly construed), the LDS Church, or BYU. I have edited on many pages in these topics and many have changed the way I think about the LDS Church and BYU, and not in a good way. Some examples are Battle at Fort Utah, a page I expanded about a one-sided attack on Timpanogos families supported by Brigham Young that lies at the heart of the city of Provo's founding. What about Seventh East Press, a page for an independent student newspaper at BYU, which was banned from being sold on BYU campus primarily because of an interview with Sterling McMurrin where he said that he didn't believe the Book of Mormon to be literally true (which I promoted on DYK)? The fact that Lucinda Lee Dalton requested her sealing to her husband be cancelled and it was revoked posthumously? Ernest L. Wilkinson's spy ring controversy? Dallin H. Oaks's negative evaluation of Nothing Very Important and Other Stories? My own students have said things like "I've summarized stuff I disagree with" (and they have published it as part of their job). Some people have expressed shock that as a professional writer, I'm messing up all the time. Guess what. There's no degree in Wikipedia editing! If you examine my considerable edit history, you are going to find errors! But I believe that on the whole, the work I and my students have done has improved Wikipedia. We have added so much accurate information, cited in-line, to reliable sources. We have helped to make more sources discoverable by summarizing and citing them. Is it that surprising that my years of editing Wikipedia in Mormon Studies have led me to gain some expertise in my field and made me want to study Mormon literature professionally? I've attempted to list all the possible COIs I could think of on my user page, and I stand by the NPOV of all of my edits. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, I'm a paid student editor who works on LDS topics. But that doesn't mean that I have been out to present a construed vision of Mormonism. When people have pointed out a lack of neutral point of view (which was wholly unintentional on my part and consisted of a few words) I have made an effort to fix it and invited them to help me. Other than that, I'm not seeing where there is a lack of this neutral point of view. Is summarizing what other people say about Mormon topics considered a violation of NPOV? Because I didn't think it was. If you're worried about the Mormon authors, keep in mind I have also used sources from Elizabeth Fenton (not a Mormon), John Christopher Thomas (a man who follows the Pentecostal tradition), and Fatimah Salleh (a reverend). Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Getting a bit off-topic. ජපස seems OK with hatting this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. You may feel that you run no risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, but if that happened because of your attempt to include content that was critical of your church, ‘’you could be expelled’’. This is what your school says in its policies. Now, maybe they don’t enforce those policies anymore, but I can only go by what I read of BYU’s rules. And according to those rules, it’s not really safe for you to try to accommodate the radically open ideology of this website as you work for and are enrolled in a school which has an entirely different ideological commitment. jps (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you seen anything in my edits that is harmful to the LDS Church or to anyone else? Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You don’t seem to be understanding my point. It doesn’t matter what I have or haven’t seen in your edits. You are free at this website inasmuch it is an Open Culture Movement website to explore, edit, study, and expand your horizons to whatever extent you would like. We encourage that on principle. Normally, I would welcome such engagement. But here is the thing: you are employed by BYU to write here. You are also a student. My commitment to radical openness then is now necessarily tempered by my greater concern for your well-being as a student and student worker because, frankly, that is far more important than the openness of this website. And if your school had a commitment to academic freedom, free speech, and so forth, there would be no tension there. But the fact remains that BYU has really strict policies. To be clear: You aren’t doing anything wrong! But we can’t stop your school from mistreating you on the basis of what I would considered normal activity at this website. If you came out tomorrow as a promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist (and I’m not saying you will… just go with the hypothetical) then while we would welcome you, suddenly you find yourself without support from the institution you rely on. And so we’re stuck. I think we can’t operate according to our own community rules because doing so puts you at risk and we need to figure out how to fix that. Having you contribute to article space is almost certainly not the right answer. If you had a sandbox where you could offer quotes from sources or apologetics or what have you that would help maintain your ecclesiastical endorsement, then there would be less of a problem. But you are duty bound to maintain a fealty to your church and your faith which this website should not be challenging because it can cause you problems. jps (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Acknowledging my disclosed past connection to BYU, I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous, howsoever inadvertently, to frame this as humanitarian concern for Heidi Pusey (BYU) and kind of paternalistic to insist that she can't assess for herself what her situation at BYU is like and whether there's any risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, to use your words. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The concern is not whether she made the correct or incorrect assessment. I trust that she knows what she is doing. I'm assessing the entirety of the situation for myself as a member of this community. My goal generally (it has nothing to do with this user specifically) is to make sure that all people are taken care of as best they can be. I see the following situation: (1) BYU has rules (2) this website has rules (3) those rules are by my reading at fundamental odds. I think that the best thing we can do given that, as a website community, and given that I have absolutely zero sway over BYU, is to prevent a situation where students acting as compelled editors (that's part of what getting paid to edit does, as fun as I find it to be since I do it for free) edit content that is directly relevant to those rules. It's that simple. Because let's say there is no risk of her running afoul of such. Then that is equally a problem in my mind. This stamps out the very radical openness we are trying to promote and makes me worried that the BYU student who is in the closet about their scholarship that identifies problems with the Book of Mormon would not and should not take this job. This can of worms is ugly and it gets worse the more you look at it. jps (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I am not in the closet about my scholarship and do not appreciate such an assumption.
      2. I do not appreciate you attacking my identity and saying I could hypothetically become a "promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist." Such an assumption is unfounded and unacceptable. I will not tolerate it.
      3. I will no longer reply in this thread. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Y'all don't see the problem here? This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical and she's being paid to write about Mormon exegesis. jps (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. I do not think it is our place to try to sanction or remove adult editors from our community because we as a third party judge they are taking on too much risk by editing here. I think this argument is very weak. This is an ANI thread about sanctions. We should stick to discussing and sanctioning actual, demonstrable misconduct. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They are at a risk because of our toleration of the situation of paid editing through this program. Shut the program down and it is no longer a risk. The misconduct was done by her boss. I support sanctioning the boss. I'm not sure what to do about the student, so sure, close this whole commentary as off-topic. jps (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The evidence seems to be quite clear. scope_creepTalk 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support based on Rachel Helps' own defense above. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground is not a good reason to allow blatant COI editing. I'm okay with driving it even further underground. Toughpigs (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The COI editing stuff was not my main concern (I'm far more worried about the paid editing junket), but I just thought I'd let the watchers here know that I tagged an article [6] just now. It's a puff-piece pure and simple and the evidence for COI is pretty straightforward if y'all have been paying attention to these posts. I agree, this needs to be stopped. I'm pretty close to striking my "with regret" which gives me regret. jps (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, this entire situation shows that we need to take a step back and take a look at possibly changing policy to prevent this from happening again. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This may need to be kicked to Arbcom. It involves at my last count at least 5 editors not even counting the students. Oh dear. jps (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I worry we're conflating separate issues.
    1) Rachel Helps' involvement with articles about AML, ARCH-HIVE, and Michael Austin strikes me as a clear COI issue and a breach of community trust.
    2) There's a broader question around how to interpret COI when it comes to BYU and the LDS church. I think the COI argument here is plausible, but much less clear cut than #1. I do worry about creating a chilling effect for e.g. an Oxford professor citing a colleague who was published by Oxford University Press, or a math teacher at a Catholic school editing a page on the Trinity. If we do need to consider this COI, I think we should take our time and define the problem narrowly and precisely.
    3) There are NPOV and sourcing concerns around some Book of Mormon articles. I'm skeptical that a topic ban will improve this, or that the articles are worse for BYU editors' involvement. Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. The BYU team seems to take these concerns seriously and make good faith efforts to include non-LDS sources. If individual articles aren't notable, we can delete them.
    4) Finally, there's a concern about implicitly endorsing BYU policies and potential risks to BYU's editors. I agree with [Hydrangeans] that this feels paternalistic, and I don't think this standard is workable. Even if we assume the worst of BYU, should we shut down any attempts to engage editors in China, in case someone writes something that upsets the CCP?
    I would support a sanction that's more narrowly tailored, e.g. blocking Rachel Helps from edits around AML and BYU faculty, while still letting her write about scripture and history. It seems excessive to block her from absolutely anything LDS related (e.g. Battle at Fort Utah) or to shut the program down.
    (In case there are any concerns: I've never met any of the editors involved, I've never attended, worked for, or even visited BYU, I learned what AML was earlier this afternoon, and I've never been a member of the church). Ghosts of Europa (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy Break (1)

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

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

      Multiple BYU professors have been fired for supporting--off-campus and strictly in a personal, sometimes even private, capacity--things the LDS church considers against-doctrine[7][8][9][10][11], so there is absolutely reason to believe they would fire a mere student employee for expressing such opinions. JoelleJay (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is an extrapolation beyond the stated honor code that you quoted to say "principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ" equals "church doctrine". If that were true then all members of the faculty and employees would have to be members of the LDS Church (they aren't), not teach evolution (they do), not teach the big bang (they do), not teach a completely non-theistic abiogenesis and creation of the earth (they do), not teach that human civilization extends way past 4000BC with no mention of Nephites, Lamanites, or Noah's ark (they do), or not use "LDS Church" (they do). Again, it's demonstrably false the claimed level of control over BYU employees in general and specifically in this case. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please read the original thread, this is discussed in great detail. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are conflating the acceptability of BYU profs lecturing on what is the mainstream, secular perspective on those topics, outside the context of the church, and BYU profs opining on what is "true" about those topics in relation to church doctrine. The former is endorsed by BYU, the latter can lead to threat of excommunication.[12] (A professor at a Washington State community college who expected to be excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over an article he wrote regarding the Book of Mormon has had his disciplinary hearing postponed indefinitely.
      Thomas W. Murphy, chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, came under scrutiny for an article he wrote for American Apocrypha, an anthology published in 2002 by Signature Books. In the article, he reviews genetic data to refute the Mormon assertion that American Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. ...      ) [13][14] (An Australian author who wrote that DNA evidence fails to support the ancestral claims outlined in the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated by The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints.) This is also blatantly obvious from the examples I gave above of BYU lecturers' personal opinions on homosexuality and feminism directly leading to their termination of employment. JoelleJay (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      All BYU employees are directly employed by the LDS Church, there is no separation between the two. I'm surprised that someone who primarily edits in the LDS topic area wouldn't know that. Its also a bit odd that you're holding up evolution, age of the earth, Big Bang etc up as ways in which BYU contradicts church teachings when the LDS Church doesn't take a position on evolution and doesn't take a position on the age of the earth or how it/the universe was created beyond a rather wishy washy one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: a query to FyzixFighter about any potential COI elicited this strange response.[15] Bon courage (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thats not terribly surprising, at this point it looks like all of the editors besides FyzixFighter who were harassing anyone who question Rachel Helps (BYU) have disclosed COIs. Its a shame they have chosen to retire rather than face the music but thats their choice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support If you aren't allowed to be neutral on this topic per terms of employment, you shouldn't be able to edit. Wikipedia has a lot of stuff not related to this to edit. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose broad topic ban Oh no, don't ban my second-favorite wiki-gnome! Seriously, though, it saddens me to see someone who is so clearly a net-positive getting hauled off to AN/I like this. Though I don't recall collaborating directly with Rachel Helps, we've crossed paths many times over the past several years, and I've always been impressed by her approach to editing and interacting with others here. I've found her to be polite, intelligent, and honest, if perhaps a bit naive. I remember being confused the first time she crossed my watchlist...my knee-jerk reaction was "why is an official BYU employee/representative editing articles about Mormonism"? Then I looked at the substance of her edits...adding sources here, reverting vandalism there, removing copyvios, expanding articles about Mormon women, and refusing to take a stance on controversial issues where she thought she might be influenced by bias. Whenever there was a consensus on something, she would follow that consensus. If she wasn't sure about something, she would ask. I think I remember seeing her report herself to a noticeboard somewhere when another editor continued challenging her on something where she thought she was right but wanted to make sure the broader community thought so too. Look at her response to this. She's not digging in—she's trying to understand and comply with the community's expectations. If you look at her recent edits to User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Conflict of Interest statements you'll see that she's gone waaay overboard on trying to declare every possible conflict of interest. She's openly admitting fault where she was wrong, and is clearly committed to doing better. I hope the people !voting here and the closing admin will take that into consideration. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor. ~Awilley (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't get the impression she is trying to understand me or anyone else who is concerned about the sum total of the mess that is Book of Mormon articles. There is absolutely no engagement with the issues at hand and when I tried to explain WP:FRINGE sourcing, the answer came back "yes, we disagree." That's fine, but one of us is being paid to be here and has a ready paid group of students who look to her for editorial guidance, right? You haven't been in conflict with her. If you end up in conflict, do you think the wider context would be a problem? jps (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know that I'd call it "conflict" but I can recall instances where I've disagreed with edits I saw her making. In each case, she immediately stopped what she was doing and listened to my objections. If she wasn't convinced by my argument, she sought a wider consensus. I've never seen her edit against a consensus.
      A few years ago there was a big influx of newbie editors trying to scrub the words "Mormon" and "Mormonism" from the encyclopedia because of recent remarks from the correct LDS president/prophet saying that use of the term was offensive to God and a victory for Satan. (The LDS church has had a long on-again-off-again relationship with the word.) I personally thought it was best to continue using the word on Wikipedia, both to be true to how reliable sources talk about Mormonism, and to be accessible to readers who are only familiar with the common name. But I suddenly found myself in the minority in opposing the changes. I suspect that personally Rachel Helps wanted to follow the command of the LDS president and that her colleagues and possibly employers at BYU were hoping that she could make Wikipedia comply with the church's new style guide. But she didn't. She participated in some discussions about the disagreement, but she didn't push hard for any particular outcome, and she (afaict) has continued to this day to respect and enforce Wikipedia's own style guide that still explicitly allows calling people Mormons, probably to the chagrin of church leadership.
      Anyway, my point is that as far as disagreements go, Rachel Helps is one of the more pleasant people I've ever disagreed with. I wish more Wikipedians were like her in that respect. ~Awilley (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think pleasantness is an issue. There is a common misconception on Wikipedia that COIs are inherently somehow "bad", but in reality the more you do in life the more COIs you accrue. It's only people who sit in their basement all day who don't have any COIs. Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You didn't really answer my question. Here's where I am as of two days ago. This user has stated point blank that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources. In the last two days, after going through hundreds of edits at dozens of articles I notice that this is the primary kind of sourcing that her students are inserting into articlespace and they are still active. I get the distinct impression that she will not be directing her students to re-evaluate their sourcing guidelines or engage with me in discussion about this topic. Now, if I had a bunch of students I could employ to check up on all this, maybe that would be an equal footing dispute. But I don't think the idea here is to start a paid editing arms race, is it? jps (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I definitely wasn't trying to dodge a question. I guess my point is that I think Rachel Helps is the kind of person who would voluntarily direct her students to follow whatever policy, guideline, or consensus you pointed her to. I think she could also be convinced by logic alone, but I can't say for sure...people like that seem to be rare these days. I wouldn't be surprised if, to comply with a consensus, she asked her students to nominate their own articles for deletion. That said, I am not really clear on what you mean by religious sources that have been noticed by other religious sources. Are you talking in general about religious academic sources citing each other, or specifically about Mormon academics citing other Mormon academics but without getting cited by non-Mormon religious scholars? (There are probably better forums than AN/I for that discussion.) ~Awilley (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you're interested, this discussion that ground to a halt is still on her user talkpage. Feel free to check it out. jps (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So this whole long thing arose out of a dispute over whether religious sources could be reliable? She wouldn't agree that reliable religious sources needed to be validated by reliable secular sources, or that verifiable information should be omitted entirely when nobody could find a reliable secular source on the subject, so you started a COI discussion at VPM and now we have a topic ban proposal?
      Why didn't you start an RFC over whether information only available in religious sources should be excluded wholesale from all of Wikipedia, instead of trying to get rid of one editor who disagreed with you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That is not what this arose out of. That dispute arose because I asked if she would consider hitting pause on her program and she came back with a set of sourcing guidelines that I found problematic. I asked her to hit pause on the program because I saw widespread issues that I am still working my way through and then noticed that all these students were being organized by one coordinator with what essentially amounted to the blessings of the GLAM/WIR system. jps (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I want to offer an addendum that since I wrote this comment, Rachel Helps has begun engaging with me on her talkpage. I find this encouraging. I still think on the balance having her and her students move away from LDS topics is a good idea, but there is discussion happening and as long as that is happening there is hope. jps (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Awilley: did you see Levivich's request "If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it."? We know you're involved and not a neutral admin, but do you have any conflicts of interest you should be disclosing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's kind of a weird litmus test for participating in an AN/I thread. I'd like to think that people should be judged based on the strength of their arguments rather than assumptions about their motivation. But if you insist, I attended BYU from about 2006-2012. I would have no idea what AML was if I hadn't just read the thread on village pump. To my knowledge I don't know and have never met any of the people in this or the other thread IRL, though it's possible we crossed paths without my realizing it. ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Its not weird if its an AN/I thread about undisclosed BYU related editing... Ok, I'm planning to open a new subsection about canvassing in a minute. Specifically regarding you and BoyNamedTzu. Is there anything you can tell me which would suggest that I should only open a discussion about BoyNamedTzu? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh, what? I don't know who BoyNamedTzu is. I logged in yesterday after getting a ping to the VP thread because I had participated in an older thread about you and Rachel Helps. Then I got another ping here because I had participated in the thread yesterday. I don't know what you're looking for, but since I've got your attention, I'd appreciate it if you could clue me in on what the invisible game of baseball is you mentioned on the VP thread. Because your response here seems a bit disproportionate. ~Awilley (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it is your sudden and inexplicable participation in that older thread about Rachel Helps and I which forms the basis for the canvassing concerns. I believe I said it was a game of inside baseball with an invisible ball... Unfortunately I can't provide any of that information due to WP:OUTING concerns, but it has been provided to ARBCON. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose broad topic ban. If we banned people who had any formal association with a Christian church or worship group from editing articles about Christianity, and the same for all religions and sects, we would have nobody left to edit the articles about those important topics, except maybe culture warriors from opposing beliefs, and who wants that? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you have misunderstood Rachel Helps relationship; it goes beyond a "formal association" - she is an employee, and one who is paid to edit. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you think it's ok for a BYU employee, who is paid and pays others to edit Wikipedia, to publish a puffy article about a Mormon organization she was actively writing pieces for; whose citations toward notability are an interview with one sentence of secondary independent coverage of the org, a piece on an exhibition organized by/featuring org members that also has only one sentence of secondary coverage of the org, and an award from another Mormon company for which this employee served as an awards judge the same year? Is it ok for this employee to initially deny COI with the claim she's merely "interested in the page"? And then, even after concerns about COI have been raised and seemingly acknowledged by her, and after the article was first draftified and then declined at AfC, to still recreate it?
      Is it ok for her to direct her employees to write articles on subjects because she can't write them herself due to COI"? JoelleJay (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per above. I also believe we should be considering topic bans for the other involved BYU editors. BilledMammal (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose such a ban. Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, for example January 2023[16] at a location allowed by WP:DISCLOSE. In brief, WP:COI says "There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs) — Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations ..." (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board) though there is considerable further nuance which requires careful consideration. Different people may legitimately have different understandings. The status of Wikipedians in Residence has for long been a contentious matter and the problems should not be visited on particular individuals. My own experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive. Thincat (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • What has your "experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive." to do with a proposal to ban her specifically from BYU editing where evidence shows that it is not "extremely positive" as in neutral, but has too often a clear pro-BYU stance, reducing the emphasis on scientific positions and increasing the emphasis on non-scientific, partisan positions? Fram (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just added COI tags on tentwelve more articles that are connected directly to the COI campaign to promote the Association of Mormon Letters. Friends, this is really gigantic problem. It's been going on for years. jps (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Not being paid by Microsoft is not an excuse for being paid by another lobby group while acting against our trustworthiness guidelines. Pldx1 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy Break (2)

    • Question - Is this a situation that could be resolved with some careful voluntary commitments? The primary issue, it seems to me, is about COI/PAID and not otherwise about competency or a pattern of violating NPOV (I understand there are side conversations about NPOV/RS, but it doesn't seem to be the primacy concern). A topic ban from LDS would not, then, address COI matters to do with any other topic and would prevent her from working on articles with no COI (unless we say belonging to a religion means you have a COI for articles about that religion and anyone else who happens to belong).
      What about a voluntary commitment to (a) maintain a list on her userpage of articles edited with a conflict of interest, erring on the side of inclusion; (b) adding a notice to the talk page of any article edited in connection with her job (there's another parallel discussion about templates/categories which could accomplish this); (c) specifically noting if an edit is made at the request of an employer? That, combined with the knowledge that her edits will receive additional scrutiny due to this thread, seems like it would resolve this without a topic ban, no? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain how it would be possible for a paid edit not to come with a COI? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I understand your question. If an edit falls under WP:PE, there is a COI. The trouble in this case, I think, is in the line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and paid editors. That's a big, messy question. Ditto the relationship between Mormon subjects broadly, BYU, LDS, etc. (not whether there is one, but how we should think about COI). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikimedian in Residence is a type of paid editor, there is no line between the two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what point you're making, but for clarity I will edit my words above: line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and ^how we treat other^ paid editors. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So if every edit that falls under PE has a COI... And every edit made by a wikipedian in residence falls under PE... How can a wikipedian in residence work on an article with which they don't have a COI? Any article they work on is one they have a COI with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has not generally been how the community chooses to interact with Wikimedians in Residence. We expect them to take a "warts and all" approach to editing, and to be cautious, but we also do not expect or AFAICT want them to spam {{edit COI}} on most of their contributions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the Wikimedian in Residence in question here has met neither of those expectations. They have not taken a "warts and all" approach to editing and have been about as far away from cautious as its possible to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that they were first cautioned about this back in 2016 [17] and yet the issue there "main concern is breach of our terms of use and COI" is the same issue here because they did not heed the caution. At some points Helps must have wondered why dozens of editors she didn't know were raising issues with her edits and why the people defending her were almost all people she knew personally. She's not a stupid person, she pretty clearly knew that what she was doing wasn't kosher from at least 2016 onwards. She continued to do it anyway. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to understand how this would prevent, for example, the coordinated editing from the Church of Scientology that we banned. We don't enforce disciplinary measures against people on the basis of their religious adherence. But here we have a group is being paid by an institution which is directly involved in the promulgation of said religion. When that happened with the Church of Scientology, we blocked the associated IP addresses on the argument that there basically was no way they could contribute to the encyclopedia at all. And to be sure, a lot of those accounts did good work other than being part of that coordinated effort. How is this different at all? jps (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Scientology case began with extensive NPOV violations achieved through sock/meatpuppetry/coordination. We didn't ban them because they were scientologists writing about scientology; we banned them because they were scientologists writing about scientology contrary to our policies. Such evidence hasn't been presented here as far as I've seen. Some level of coordination, yes, which should be disclosed, but not to game the system. That's a fundamental difference that makes the scientology comparison misleading. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the VPM thread? I document a few of the diffs there and it's basically a litany of the same. Here we have a group of editors who are adding prose that basically takes the Book of Mormon on its own terms as a text. When called out on it, the ringleader declared that she fundamentally disagrees with people who object to that behavior. It's exactly the same kind of thing the scientologists were doing. And, I mean, I was there for that one and saw it happening. Do me a favor and look at any of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Or look at all the pages I just tagged with COI and see how many of them were connected to Rachel. This is a complete clusterfuck. jps (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Scanned it, but apparently I have more to look at. Will check it out before !voting here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could use a pointer to the evidence you're referring to. I see diffs about COI, but not diffs of edits made my Rachel which violate our policies. The content-related diffs I do see (e.g. in your 17:06, 12 March 2024 comment) were made by others, who aren't the subject of this section. Do me a favor and look at any of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Is this an argument about over-coverage (in which case I'd rather see evidence of lots of deleted pages created by Rachel rather than focused efforts to cover a subject -- I'd argue we have overcoverage of a lot of religious subjects, including Mormonism, and a whole lot of editors focus on specific subjects), or is it an argument about use of inappropriate sources? Regardless, this isn't a topic ban for a group, it's a topic ban for one person so we'd need evidence that Rachel is editing in a non-neutral or otherwise problematic way (not just COI, which seems like something that can be resolved with transparency/assurances). It seems to me there's a bigger conversation that needs to happen regarding use of sources published in connection to a religion and/or by members of that religion. I don't think I peruse religious articles as much as you or many others, but it seems to me like most of them rely on such "in-universe" sources. I don't think that's ideal, but I'm wary of singling one out. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... are you saying that you don't think that she should be accountable for the edits that she paid her students to make? I can give you some examples of edits that she made if that's more to your liking, but I'm somewhat surprised that you are so dismissive of student edits which she has later defended on talkpages (but it's possible you aren't looking at larger context due to time). jps (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does a tban for RH prevent her students from doing anything at all? How would it prevent anything that happens off-wiki? As with any student program, if a student is persistently making bad edits, sanction them like you would any other user. If an instructor displays a pattern of disregard for our policies such that their students are a consistent net negative, that's a different kind of sanction (and I don't think there's enough evidence for that here, either, though that doesn't mean there haven't been problems). What I would expect for a tban on an individual is a pattern of harmful edits made to that topic area. That case hasn't been made sufficiently. The case that has been made, insofar as I've seen, is that there have been some clear COI problems and a difference of opinion when it comes to sourcing religious topics. On the latter, I think you and I are probably on the same page, but I don't see it as an entirely resolved policy issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't a TBAN mean paying her students for making any particular edits in that area would be sanctionable for both her and the students? So any edit made in LDS topics by the (BYU) student accounts would be a TBAN violation, but they would be free to edit in that area on their personal accounts. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The students would be stopped by WP:MEAT because they receive assignments from RH. jps (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relationships are a little confusing to me. We're talking, I think, about effectively interns/research assistant/student workers on one hand and students being students on the other hand. If RH were to be tbanned, that would make any students hired/directed to make specific edits by RH fall somewhere between MEAT and PROXYING, yes, which is a bad place to be. I don't think a general instruction to "edit Wikipedia" would be prevented, though. Nor would students hired by someone else and merely supported by RH. And a tban wouldn't prevent RH from what I suspect is the more common scenario: helping students, faculty, staff, and others to edit according to their own interests (i.e. not directed but supported). And that's IMO a good thing, not just because that attempts to reach too far off-wiki with on-wiki sanctions, but also because while the COI stuff should definitely be avoided, RH is better equipped than a typical student (or even faculty) editor to provide best practices/instruction, etc. I'd say that's probably more rather than less true after this thread. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way RH has set up the projects is that she guides the students very carefully in what they do. This is actually one positive thing she does that does not happen with other similar programs I have seen, so good on her for that. The upshot is that I would not want this kind of guidance on her part to end if this paid editing program continues, so her students would effectively be TBanned as well. If we started to see lots of edits the way they have been editing, that would, in my mind, constitute a topic ban violation. I cannot speak for RH, but I suspect that she would have them move away from Mormonism topics if she were TBanned which would be the best possible outcome, as far as I'm concerned.
    And, no, I am not convinced that things are going to get better just because of this discussion. There seems to have been an enculturation over the last few years which has provoked a kind of perfect storm of bad editing practices that I have been digging into over the last few days and it is not going to be easy to figure out what to do about all this. There seems to be an over-focus on treating the Book of Mormon as literature which is the main thrust behind RH's favored approach and that of others conflicted with the Association of Mormon Letters. Right now, we have lots of articles on weird little topics within the book of Mormon which treat the thing as though it were literature like Tolkien or Dickens I guess as a way to sidestep questions related to the religious beliefs that surround these things. The students she has coached seem to have adopted this approach in part while also maintaining delightfully matter-of-fact retellings of the mythology as though it were fact. It's a mess.
    But the students aren't really to blame here. They're being led by a much-lauded (by enablers you can see in this very thread) Wiki[p|m]edian in Residence who has been scrupulously trying to follow the rules and no one bothered to tell her that maybe editing about a religion as controversial as Mormonism (to which she belongs and is employed by the religious authorities of that religion through their in-house institution of higher education with strict rules on what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis that religion) maybe is not going to sit well with some in the Wikipedia community that takes things like WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE seriously.
    So here we are. Your idea to get her to clean things up means unlearning years of training that she invented without input from the community. I look forward to seeing what kind of program you might be able to invent that could address that. jps (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Voluntary commitments, really? No I wouldn't support that because a number of the editors involved have previously lied about not having COIs when asked. Also because this is years of undisclosed COI editing happening here. So, no, it'd be crazy of us to trust any voluntary commitments from people who have actively deceived us for such a long time and up until so recently. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Toughpigs, and similar action against other COI editors should be considered, per BilledMammal. This is an area where WP should take a hardline stance. Grandpallama (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per User:Vghfr, User:Fram and others. But I think we have a wider issue with LSD-related articles here that a few topic bans will not solve it. I agree with User:JoelleJay's comment in the other discussion about the lack of NPOV in "topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic". We have a massive walled garden of hundreds if not thousands of these obscure, otherwise NN topics sourced only to LSD-related publications which could pass the surface of GNG and easily game the notability rules. --Cavarrone 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Our articles on Catholicism mostly reflect Catholic sources. Our articles on Judaism mostly reflect Jewish sources. That is natural and only to be expected. Why is it suddenly a problem when the same thing occurs in our articles on LDS? The people one would expect to be interested in and write about LDS are...LDS people. That is the nature of the sources. It is not a conflict of interest to use the mainstream sources that are available. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that has not been my experience as I edited those topics. In fact, many of our Catholic articles have sources which are explicitly critical of the Catholic Church nearly to the point of vitriol. By contrast, Judaism is so irreverent and delightfully self-critical that I am at a loss for why you think the comparison to those pages is at all apt. jps (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes – if and when those other sources exist, are reliable, are relevant, etc.
      But from your comment above that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources, it sounds like the complaint you have here is that some content is being added from LDS-related sources when no non-religious source has ever disagreed with the LDS-related source.
      I have not seen any disputes in which someone adds information about a Catholic or Jewish religious idea, from a reliable source written by a religious organization, and someone else demands that the reliable source be removed on the grounds that non-religious sources haven't published anything on that subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then you haven't been looking at disputes over the Shroud of Turin. jps (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why would we even need specific examples from Catholic or Jewish editors when we had a whole arbcom case surrounding exactly this behavior from Scientology adherents? JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because a new religious group with something on the order of 10 thousand members is not the same as a 200-year religion with 17 million members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      LDS is a new religious movement the same as Scientology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What does the number of years a religion has been around or number of members of a religion have to do with anything? The only thing I can think of is that there are probably more sources if there is more time and people involved, which is true. But on the substance these things are the same. I mean, Mormonism and Scientology are actually very comparable. There are a great many excellent sources which show that. In fact, that was at one time one of the articles on my list of articles to write. The funny thing is that neither the Mormons nor the Scientologists like the comparison. jps (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened and so are of interest to secular historians, enough primary interpretations of scripture to engage dozens of generations of academics, and far broader and more significant impact on human culture in general, permitting even more opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship. We should not be treating every religious movement as if they're each equally likely to have the depth and independence of sourcing needed to support pages on minor aspects of their faith. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, some new religions too. For example, the foundational sacred texts of the Nation of Islam has some fascinating description of what life was like in the African American community of Detroit in the 1930s. jps (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Re "Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened": this reads as straight-up prejudice to me (and I have zero connection with LDS). You might just as well say have a much greater likelihood that those older religions' texts contain fabulations, misreadings, and other material we wouldn't want to take as literally true, simply because they've had so much longer to accumulate that sort of material. But we are not basing our content on the content of the Book of Mormon; we are basing it on the accounts of their historians. I would tend to imagine that, while biased, those accounts are maybe more likely to be accurate, because they are from a more recent time with better records, while the writings of the early Christian church historians have the same tendency to their own bias. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the older religions generally do have much more fabulist text, as well as a lot more material that has taken on mythical aspects or been reported by apologists (e.g. miracles) over hundreds or thousands of years. But that's irrelevant to what I am saying, which is that it's far more likely texts recounting religious narratives that we can accurately date to c. 300 AD will also have some bits of real history and info on life at the time that can't be found anywhere else, and would thus be of intense interest to modern scholars in many fields, than scripture written more recently (as contemporaneous writings become more numerous, the preciousness of any single one as a major primary source across multiple disciplines outside religion decreases) or scripture that wholly fabricates ancient history and is virtually useless to anyone actually studying its purported time period.
      There are extensive secondary analyses of secondary analyses etc. of scholarship on Jewish or Catholic scriptural and metaphysical questions, and new external sources or theories on the cultural/geopolitical/philosophical climate of a time continue to be discovered and incorporated into what we know about a spiritual topic beyond exegesis of scripture. We don't need to rely on unreliable primary or old secondary sources to do this because we generally have plenty of modern secondary sources, often in multiple nonsecular fields, to use in writing a comprehensive and neutral article on a subject. We don't have this for LDS topics because the furthest back historians can go from BoM et al scripture is 200 years ago. But LDS historians are still analyzing their scriptures in the sincere belief that they recount actual events from thousands of years ago, making the same kinds of extrapolations and interpolations from their holy books to reconstruct that past that any other historian would do with genuine ancient text, except none of it corresponds to real history. No questions in anthropology or archaeology or history are being answered in any way that is meaningful outside of LDS faith, and so no secular researchers in those disciplines have any reason to publish academic commentary on the LDS scholars' theories. The result is that we have hundreds of pages on minor characters and events from BoM where the only sources are from adherents collaboratively building what amounts to a fictional literary universe (or, perhaps as a more fitting analogy, a new, Hardy-hard branch of pure math), except it's dressed up in the same historiographic structure as we'd have on a topic with thousands of years of history. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's my view, not necessarely agreeable, but if an LSD topic has no sources outside LSD sources it is likely unnotable, and writing a balanced article about it is impossible. Also, I am not necessarely referring to strictly religious topics, eg., we have obscure, semi-amateur and poorly released films only sourced from Journal of Religion and Film, byu.edu and similar, same with books and other products. Cavarrone 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is a sensible rule. However, I worry about defining "LDS source" too broadly. Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction is written by a Mormon, but it's published by Oxford University Press and targeted at a non-LDS audience. Oxford also publishes an annotated Book of Mormon. I think we need to narrowly define what falls into this category, and have that conversation in a less heated atmosphere than ANI. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Cavarrone about notability, but I think the solution there is not to announce that only a secular source could possibly be acceptable for explaining the symbolism of the story, and that if no secular source ever wrote about the symbolism, then symbolism can't be mentioned in Wikipedia, but to take the article to AFD.
      When we're talking about a notable subject, though, I think our usual rules work perfectly well for this subject. We don't require independent sources for everything that gets mentioned in an article, and that's true whether you're writing about how many employees Microsoft has, or what the symbolism of the story is, or why the artist chose to put a colorful blanket behind the cow's skull. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me give a concrete example to help focus the conversation. On multiple articles I found years given for events described in the Book of Mormon. Some of those years were laughably specific. Some of those years are repeated by many, many Mormon sources. Now, I would love for there to be an article in Wikipedia about Ascribing dates to the stories in the Book of Mormon or something like that to explain exactly the weird calculus that Mormon apologists go through in arriving at these dates and why certain dates are more popular with certain Mormons than others, but the fact of the matter is that this has been so little noticed by independent sources that in many cases it has not even occurred to the authors of our own articles that putting in years might be a problem. The easiest solution I think is to excise them, but sure, it's not the only possible solution. But the solution cannot be, "let's just put those dates in the articles and call it a day." which was, as far as I can tell, the standard operating procedure. jps (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No, but the solution could be "Let's put the dates in with WP:INTEXT attribution".
      The main point of this sub-thread, though, is to talk about whether we're treating all religions equally. Have you seen a similar thing in, say, Catholic articles, in which someone adds some papal pronouncement, and other editors say, "Oh, no, you can't add that unless you have a secular source, too"? I haven't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Absolutely! As I pointed out above, when there are clear fabrications (as in, for example, the case of Marian apparitions), we do the same thing. jps (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      By the way, these students got the memo about WP:INTEXT. The problem is that that often goes like this, "According to [PERSON'S NAME THAT IS UNMENTIONED EXCEPT FOR RIGHT HERE], this story is all about..." Or, worse, "According to historian [HISTORIAN]..." and you research the historian and come to find that they are a professor of history at BYU who wrote the book, "How I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true" or whatever. So, no, WP:INTEXT isn't cure-all. jps (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • NeutralYes, things are not okay. But I have serious trouble with the fact that a topic ban can cost her her job. The Banner talk 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If this ban will cause loss of employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, wouldn't this be seen as a personal attack as this is threatening the editor's livelihood? Furthermore, wouldn't the effort to have editors who have any affiliation with Brigham Young University in relation to Mormanism cause a chilling effect and diminish the improvement of articles around that topic? RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Surely you could ask these questions about any analogous remedy addressing a WiR or systematic COI. Surely these positions aren't immune from scrutiny; we're concerned about people being paid by BYU to edit Wikipedia, not every individual affiliated with them in any way. If you're making some other point, I am not able to tell what it is. Remsense诉 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For my part, I have serious trouble with the premise that we must not enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines on editors for any such reason. When the pluperfect hell did we become an employment agency? Ravenswing 12:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Rachel Helps has been a consistent positive contributor to an essential area of religious discourse. She is professionally talented, responsive to community, an active participant on multiple open networks of movement organizers, and an ambitious trainer and supervisor for others. There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed and aims to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion. There are plenty of COI battles to fight; this isn't one of them. Ocaasi t | c 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, are you opposing the topic ban for Thmazing (not Rachel Helps)? Ghosts of Europa (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've moved it to the correct section. Apologies and thanks for the tip! Ocaasi t | c 20:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ocaasi, you appear to have a) !voted in the wrong section and b) failed to read anything more than the section heading, as then you would know that the issue is that their work has not been "disclosed" or "rigorous" on subjects they were professionally connected to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think "aiming to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion" is necessarily good enough. Otherwise WP:CIR bans/blocks wouldn't be a thing. Now, maybe you oppose those bans/blocks too, but I am deep in the weeds right now of seeing how Rachel Helps's students were treating material relevant to their religion and... hooboy... even if their hearts were in the right place they are doing us no favors in articlespace. I am very, very happy she has finally told her students to work in sandboxes which, if that had been happening all along I probably wouldn't be involved in this, but the conversation I'm having with her right now is one the "Open Networks of Movement Organizers" should have had with her years ago about her programming. Y'all did her dirty and I'm actually angrier at her enablers than I am at her. She honestly did not know this was coming and by running defense this whole time after multiple people have sounded alarms (just look through her usertalkpage archive), you did not give her the support she would have needed to actually make something like this work (or choose to not do it at all in case, as I suspect, it would be impossible to make this stuff work). jps (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Point of order: she knew this was coming for the last four years at least[18]. Thats what makes the refusal to improve and meet the standards/practices outlined by the community so bad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for bringing that up. You neglrct to mention that there was no administrative acton resulting from that discussion, and no community admonishment or sancation. Indeed, even the person raising the issue noted "They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable." and, later, "I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well yeah, that discussion got mobbed by people we now know had major undisclosed COIs. You're selectively cherrypicking in a way that seems misleading at best, especially considering the things you say in that discussion. We have the same thing happening there as here, Rachel Helps is informed about best practices and rejects them saying for example "In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable. I don't really have time to go back into the history of four years ago to check if that was true then, but it is absolutely not the case right now. I have been going through dozens of Book of Mormon articles that were being edited by this crew and with very few exceptions they are not NPOV nor well-sourced -- many are either WP:PROFRINGE or written in something like WP:INUNIVERSE with bizarre assumptions, turns of phrase, etc. I am finding all kinds of sources being used that have 0 citations according to Google Scholar! Rachel Helps (BYU) is defending this practice of keeping such shoddy sources in these articles much to my disappointment. jps (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ocaasi: Are you also an active participant in those open networks of movement organizers? Any conflicts you should be disclosing? Pardon the question but we seem to be having an issue with undisclosed COIs on a number of levels in this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support per Rachel Helps: "I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI." I am unable to trust this user in this topic area any longer. starship.paint (RUN) 01:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the above admission I highlighted contrasts with several opposers' rationale, and I quote from each of them: (1) How anyone can ... say her CoI is "undisclosed" (2) Banning someone for a procedural error, (3) Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, (4) There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed. starship.paint (RUN) 02:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't quote me (and others) out of context; even if you do neglect to give attrbution when doing so. What I wrote and what I was replying to when I did so is avaialble for anyone to see, at the top of this thread. What you quote Rachel saying does not negate my comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Pigsonthewing: - you defended Rachel indicating that she disclosed COI on the (BYU) account. But, she admitted undisclosed COI on the other, personal account. The same person is behind both accounts, so I am afraid she didn’t handle COI properly. starship.paint (RUN) 00:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hesitant oppose, because I'm a little worried we're conflating some related but separate issues here. It is quite clear that Rachel Helps did a poor job of disclosing her COIs, and lost perspective when editing some topics on which she had a COI. It is clear that many BYU-affiliated editors have been writing poor content. And it is clear that many pages related to Mormonism have too much material from uncritical sources (but this isn't limited to Mormonism by any means). But I don't see this topic-ban addressing any of those issues, and indeed I think it might worsen them, because Rachel is better placed than many editors to help fix these issues. I do think her students need to be moved away from LDS-related topics: whether because they're being paid, or the rules of BYU, or their upbringing, or some combination thereof, there seems to be a recurring pattern of poor content that others need to fix. But at this moment I don't see how this TBAN would achieve much besides being a punishment. It wouldn't even fix the COI issue, because as best as I can tell religion is sort of incidental to those COI issues; it's just Rachel editing about things she's involved with in RL, which is a problem to be sure, but isn't limited to Mormonism. It seems to me Rachel is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and we'd do better to focus on the problematic content other editors, including her students, may have introduced. For the record, I consider myself quite firmly in favor of avoiding apologetic sources and in-universe sources for religious subjects, and have argued for this position in numerous cases involving most major religions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, this is a convincing (to me) oppose. Only reason I stay supporting the ban is that I see a topic ban from LDS would probably encourage a lot of the best-case scenario stuff to happen anyway and it might get accomplished and probably more quickly. Yes, she is well-placed to fix issues and I'm sure she wants to fix them, but maybe it would be better if she and her students focused on other things that could be done at that library. The flora and fauna of the Great Basin, for example. jps (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future (minor, because major ones receive editorial scrutiny and attention from critical sources; it's the ones that don't that seem to be the focus of the problem). Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In that case, why not topic ban just to make it clear? jps (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Because there's a big difference between "shouldn't add substantive content to these pages going forward" and "isn't permitted to discuss these topics in any way shape or form". I stand by what I said above that Rachel herself is best placed to help us clean up some of this mess. Not to mention that TBANNing her when she still has active students would be quite silly; those would then be completely unsupervised. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why would that be silly? We're all completely unsupervised and these are adult in college, not children in middle or high school. They should be entirely capable of editing wikipedia on their own, we all do. Also note that while these are student employees they are not her students in the sense that they are enrolled in a class where she is their instructor. She is an employer/manager not a teacher or professor to these editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So you're describing a TBAN from articlespace? I agree that this is where most of the damage is happening--discussion spaces are much less problematic. As for your "unsupervised active student" argument, I don't understand it even a little bit. You already said "I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future." RH would still be able to supervise them to edit articles on the flora and fauna of the Great Basin. jps (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Very simply, those students are a net-positive largely because of Rachel's supervision, and as such I oppose any TBAN on those grounds until we simultaneously apply it to all students she is responsible for. She may technically be able to supervise them on non-LDS topics, but that's quite unworkable in practice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose per Vanamonde93. I think that a ban doesn't serve the project, and that this entire thread will hopefully be sufficient to change her behavior. Mason (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Even though the COI is greater than Mormonism this would at least serve as a warning that Helps' COI editing is causing concern. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "serve as a warning " You think this thread doesn't do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Some warnings may need to be more forcefully made than others. I sympathize with the idea that Rachel Helps (BYU) probably thought everything was fine and that the complaints that had been leveled against her over the years were nothingburgers. Unfortunately, those complaints were serving as warnings that obviously went unheeded. And, to be frank, I think people like you are to blame for enabling her and not being honest with her that this was coming. Now, maybe you didn't know this was coming, but someone in your group of WMF/GLAM/WIR in-person conference/wiknic attendees should have noticed and taken her aside and given her the advice that right now is coming down like a pile of bricks. But it didn't happen. Years went by and here we are. That's right, I am much angrier at you (and the position you are representing right now) than I am at her. jps (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Vanamonde93. While there are some issues, they don't amount to the kind of egregious problem that would warrant such dracionian action; and there is no previous sanction, let alone one wilfuly disregarded. I might suport some lesser remedy, such as mentiorship. or a probationary period after which we can reviist the matter if issues persist. But I believe Rachel's work has been shown to be - and wil contnue to be - a net benefit to this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pigsonthewing: I see this isn't your first rodeo[19]. Can I ask how opinion has changed since the first time you commented on this issue four years ago? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe we should start asking the harder question whether involvement in WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest. Because I see wagon circling. jps (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no question it does, the only question is whether its enough of a COI to be an issue (signs point to yes BTW given the wagon circling). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest - Does WMF fund this WiR? Most WiR positions these days (AFAIK) are funded by the hiring institutions. I would be shocked if the WMF were funding this one just based on the fact that it involves on-wiki editing, which has been a line for the WMF, historically. Likewise most GLAM projects have nothing to do with the WMF. If you go to a museum and say "can I tell you about Wikipedia" or "want to upload some photos to Commons" or "want to host an edit-a-thon" then you're involved with a GLAM project, regardless of who funds it or whether it involves any funding at all. The extent to which the WMF is involved with most edit-a-thons is to fund an affiliate, who then e.g. buys a couple pizzas for attendees. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that sponsored and funded are synonyms there... Anything under the banner or that is allowed to use the branding is sponsored even if there is no funding provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. While more-or-less radically open to anyone, someone (the community) ultimately does have to agree that GLAM is appropriately attached to something so that it can be called that. This is usually pro forma, but it still ends up supported. If "sponsored" is the troubling word, choose another synonym that means the same without necessarily monetary support. jps (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I started typing this yesterday, and find that Vanamonde has articulated some similar reasons, so partially "per Vanamonde". I see evidence of insufficiently disclosed COIs, evidence that RH is working to address those problems, evidence of years of good faith engagement with the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community, evidence of problematic edits made by other people, a big thorny question about independence of sourcing in religious articles that's better addressed elsewhere, and not nearly enough diffs showing violations of our content policies by RH to justify a tban.
      That said, I would strongly urge RH to set some boundaries in the WiR role and to articulate those boundaries on their user page. Our COI guideline is messy and applied inconsistently, and often with a rhetorical flourish that tries to combine the negative connotations with close COIs and the technical definition of COI that includes distant COIs we don't actually view as a problem. All of this makes things challenging for anyone who does any editing with a close or [moderate?, for lack of a better word] COI, since you have to be able to judge how much COI is going to be too much, and be prepared for that scale to slide based on other factors (as in this case, the role of money and the role of other affiliated editors). Being transparent goes a long way, but my own $0.02 is that you should absolutely abstain from editing or assigning anyone to edit an article on any subject you've received money from, that you're on the board for, that you have a nontrivial personal relationship with, etc. That's what {{Edit COI}} is for. The COI guideline doesn't require you stay away, but editing those articles while being paid is a recipe for disaster. I worry that it erodes the thin line between "the kind of paid editing we like" and "the kind of paid editing we don't like" such that the life of future WiRs will be more difficult. Enwiki's view of COI seems like it will only become more volatile.
      All in all, I think having a highly experienced Wikipedian on staff is very much a good thing. RH has the ability to translate the complicated and ever-evolving PAGs (and their interpretations) for a large community. As long as most of the problematic content edits are other people's, it would be good to have RH available to help. Besides, as I started off saying, the evidence just isn't here to justify a tban. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mostly I agree with you, however I do assign greater accountability to RH for what you're calling "other people's" edits. In these cases she is both acting as the supervisor of, and paying, these other people to make those problematic edits, which I think elevates her responsibility quite a bit. Especially given several of the articles she assigned to students were assigned because she felt she had too much of a COI to write them herself... JoelleJay (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, if you have a COI and assign/pay someone to edit it, that doesn't negate the COI. It just creates another level of PAID and/or a WP:MEAT/proxy-based COI, which is probably going to be regarded as worse insofar as it obscures the COI. Along the lines of voluntary commitments and clear articulations of boundaries that I've been talking about, I'd hope something acknowledging as much would be in there, if she hasn't addressed it already. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The best I can say is that she is asking her students to sandbox. That's the full extent of it that I've seen. She will be stepping away for a few days, but maybe you could ask her when she gets back to implement something that would make you comfortable? I'm kinda of the opinion that the more ways we try to solve this the better. jps (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy Break (3)

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

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

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

    Heidi's job title is Student Wikipedia Editor. When I hired this batch of students last fall, I did tell them that I wanted to start a project to work on Book of Mormon pages (an initiative started by me). However, I hired my students based on their writing experience, not based on any specific experience with Book of Mormon topics. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, so please ping me again if you have a follow-up question. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Satterfield does not have subject matter expertise as recognized by strong citations by academics in academic publications. Therefore his SPS is not reliable. Everything else you've said is irrelevant, though I'll note that student projects simply hosted by the university are also never reliable as published academic work and I would hope you haven't been adding them as sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because you've never encountered any issues before doesn't mean Helps is innocent. Have you read anything in this thread and the corresponding thread?? vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What does that have anything to do with the sanction being proposed here or the user it's being proposed against? I see virtually nothing in that !vote rationale that actually addresses such matters; the only thing that might come anywhere close is the vague anecdotal claim I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia. Left guide (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      First of all how do you know that I am a "fellow non-theists and atheists"? Second that source may look legitimate but its actually a non-expert self published source unaffiliated with the LDS Church, the LDS editors actually agreed that it was a source that should be removed/improved. I didn't destroy anything or change its eligibility, looking at other articles you've significantly authored (for example Claude AnShin Thomas) it looks like the issue may be with your sourcing practices and not mine. I apologize for causing you distress but I also have no idea what that would do with your vote unless you're voting in an AN/I discussion based solely on spiting another editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're mistaken again. My sourcing is entirely reliable, and is accurately reflected in the final GA review.[31] As can be seen in that link, the sources you removed[32] were not the versions of the sources I originally added,[33] however both sources support the same, accurate information. You neglected to actually read the article you edited, because if you had you would have noticed that the citation you removed said "Retrieved 2007-07-17", which refers only to this version supporting the material. You removed the newer version instead, which had been revised. You then left a citation needed tag in its place. As of today, there is a more current database listing on the revised site.[34] You couldn't be bothered with any of this, of course. One wonders if your poor judgment here is reflective of your other baseless criticism, such as that over at Claude AnShin Thomas, which has no known problems either. One wonders how much this kind of bias infects the rest of this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But churchofjesuschristtemples.com/churchofjesuschristtemples.org is a non-expert self published source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Opinions differ, and policies and guidelines dynamically change over time. When the article was written, those sources were acceptable, and the author was a computer scientist at BYU who had created the only site on the internet that collected and maintained statistical data about the temples. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think they ever were a computer scientist at BYU... I see a bachelor's degree in computer science from BYU but no teaching or research position. Today that source is not acceptable and I don't think that it was when the article was written either. Looking at the talk page it looks like the reliability was actually challenged all the way back in 2007 (Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple/Archive 1#Credibility of source). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, questioned by me. Did you read the discussion? Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did... Didn't see a consensus that the source was reliable. I'm actually confused as to how that source remained in the article after that discussion. I also double checked and he was never a computer scientist at BYU (and even if he was I don't see how that would contribute to him being a subject matter expert in this context). And again none of this explains your vote here, even if everything you say is completely true your vote makes no sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, you are confused. I am the one who questioned the source in the first place and originally tagged it. As that discussion indicates, another editor arrived to discuss it, and I removed the tag. Should I have disagreed with myself? That seems to be what you are saying here. Viriditas (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I must be confused, because this none of this substantiates "destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting" nor does it substantiate that the author was a a computer scientist at BYU nor does it explain what any of this has to do with the larger discussion (besides possibly the author's BYU connection?). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You are free to see my new comments up above that address your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ignoratio elenchi. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 17:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Saying that every problem you've encountered on Wikipedia has come from non-theists and atheists is quite a remarkable statement. How are you able to determine the religious affiliation of your fellow editors? And even in the unlikely event that it is true, what relevance does it have for this issue? The question at hand is about one particular editor, not all LDS members or all atheists. CodeTalker (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Viriditas: woah, I just noticed that you're referring to me as "Horse Eye's Black" in both of the original comments here. What is that supposed to mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It means my keyboard is broken Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How does a broken keyboard result in Horse Eye's Black? Its not a misspelling, its a pipe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like a copy and paste from a typo. Viriditas (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok sure. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You probably need to take a step back from this discussion if you're looking this hard for implied slights. Parabolist (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I would have suggested a warning, but in light of the extensive COIN discussion from 2020 that appears to have not resolved this issue, I think we'd just be back here sooner or later for another rodeo.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, its not a new phenomena. They were warned in 2020, clearly warned by admin. scope_creepTalk 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I find the general oppose reasonings to be particularly uncompelling and that it does not adequately address the evidence presented in this and the prior discussion. The attempt to present this discussion as a referendum on theist vs. non-theist editors completely misses the point of the evidence provided. The only oppose rationale thus far that strikes me as valid at all is Vanamond93's comment, but I ultimately agree more with jps's rejoinder to Vanamonde93's perspective. signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support However much good faith (no pun intended) can be ascribed, this a situation which needs to be addressed directly. Treating this as a generalised COI issue to be addressed via a review of policy/guidelines elsewhere will not address the specific instutional arrangement which is engendering systemic failures with regard to core tenets - neutrality, due, fringe and reliable, independent sourcing. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. The opposes all miss the point entirely; paid editing that directly touches mainspace is basically never acceptable. This is not a case where "positive contributions" matter, not at all. Even if done with the best of intentions, it completely distorts our processes; the fact always remains that someone whose paycheck is dependent on an organization is not going to make edits that might get them fired. Even the absolute best, most well-intentioned edits, otherwise policy-compliant in every way, will distort the balance of articles when made in a systematic way by large numbers of editors whose views are all distorted in the same way by the same financial incentive. Therefore, "they've made positive contributions" is never a defense against a WP:COI issue. It is simply never acceptable to seriously edit mainspace in areas where your employer has a strong perspective or vested interest. If this were any other organization, that would be obvious - would we accept the arguments above for an editor paid by Amazon or Microsoft or OpenAI or some cryptocurrency startup, who wanted to edit pages obviously relevant to those topics? From the Democratic and Republican parties, or from individual political think tanks who hire and send in numerous articulate, intelligent editors who share their views? How is this different? And how, exactly, could volunteer editors maintain neutrality in the face of that? Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian in Residence isn't meant to be an exception to these rules - per the description on Meta In this context, there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution. Furthermore, look at the examples there - it's meant to be an uncontroversial role for museum curators and the like, not for a church to employ people making sweeping sorts of edits on topics related to their faith or for a political think-tank to employ someone making edits about their politics. I think that we might want to look at some of the related policies in order to tighten them up and make them more clear, if people are somehow confused about all this, but this particular example is so far over the line that an immediate topic-ban is obvious. EDIT: Support shifted to strong to emphasize how strongly I feel that none of the rationales people are presenting are policy-based and how important it is to establish that they carry no weight. --Aquillion (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aquillion, I agree in general with your take on this. COI and PE are often issues that result in editing that skews away from our principles, policies and guidelines. However, in this instance Rachel and her Posse (or crew) were never concerned about "making edits that might get them fired." Take a look at this conversation here [35] (Section title "Academic Freedom"). Essentially, throughout the whole Q & A it becomes clear that none of these editors are constrained by fear of an employer or policy. It doesn't take long to read. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no difference to me at all, for three reasons. First, WP:COI is unequivocal that the appearance of a COI is sufficient; it does not matter one iota how thoroughly someone is convinced (or can convince others) that they are capable of being impartial. It is a red line with no exceptions. Second, this is because influence can be subtle and sometimes not even obvious to those exercising it; words are cheap, actually making the people they paid to edit Wikipedia impartial is... impossible. Third, most importantly, even if someone manages to adhere rigorously to that freedom, and even if they are flawless immaculate saints incapable of ever considering who pays their paychecks, paid editing still allows the employer to "stack the deck" on particular subjects by hiring people to edit prolifically simply because they know what they believe and what areas they will edit in. This doesn't even have to be intentional; it's no different from the principle of WP:CANVASSing - unless they're hiring people totally at random, they're going to be stacking the deck based on who they hire and what pool they hire from. There are no situations where someone should be getting paid to make nontrivial mainspace edits on Wikipedia, or even to contribute to discussions without the extremely rigid restrictions placed on disclosed COIs (even those restrictions are truthfully too loose for me, but in this case no one even paid lip service to them.) This is actually important. Pushing back against COIs is vital to keeping Wikipedia functional; most pages and topic areas only have a few dozen really active users, or a few hundred at most, and even they have no real hope of keeping up with editors whose entire job is to edit Wikipedia. If we didn't maintain a hard line, any topic area that was targeted with paid editing would be rapidly drowned in it, with every discussion and every effort at consensus-building dominated by whoever their employer decided to employ. There's no such thing as someone being a "good egg" as a paid editor, because the problem is the entire structure behind their editing and what it would mean for Wikipedia if allowed to proliferate. --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I agree with your concerns about paid editing--we should get rid of it. I've never bought the argument that making it "ok" means that paid editors are more likely to divulge COI. Case in point here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, English Wikipedia has done a gang buster job, in the past to get individuals who could contribute positively, on this platform to chase them away. The individual editor in question has done a great job with bringing individuals who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy to improving content on this encyclopedia. Yet, there is this effort to limit that effort. What does this say about our community, but to enforce the view that English Wikipedia is not neutral, is exclusionary, and doesn't want individuals who might not align a certain way onto this encyclopedia, especially if they contribute within spaces which certain alignments oppose.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy ... no doubt an unintended Freudian slip; but that's precisely the problem, institutional devotion here has created a systemic inability to edit according to our policies and guidelines. It's irrelevant what one's intention is; the cascading effect of the relationships have created a swathe of articles and edits which are non-compliant with our tenets. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't have tenets on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines. These were applied to the best of Rachel's, her colleagues', and students's ability most of the time. And actually, their efforts and goals were the opposite of institutional devotional editing. There may be some obscure Mormon religious-character-articles that don't have good coverage. But, that is an oversight that is happening in other areas of Wikipedia in a likewise fashion. And I have to say, I have not seen you involved in any of the recent discussions on LDS/Book of Mormon talk pages. So rather than denigrate the hard work of other editors I recommend pitching in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This response exemplifies the problem. This is not about well-intentioned mistakes - this is about a systemic COI failure to ensure neutrality, reliable sourcing and due. Every editor has a right to be concerned about this issue, irrespective of their efforts towards the particular topic, precisely because of the far reaching effects beyond the topic. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. What Gamaliel said. Also, I would like to support this Wikipedian in Residence, and acknowledge their contributions. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Would you also like to acknowledge the concerns raised below (now within a collapse) by BilledMammal, which were also posted on your talk page? Remsense诉 19:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure. Accepting or declining in-person meetings in the workplace is pretty standard in my world. By contrast, almost every single conversation in this online environment seems like nothing but trouble. I thought that meeting a person with shared interests and a public-facing job, in a public place might be a way to clear up misunderstandings. I did not know that suggesting people try talking things over in person is considered unacceptable here. Now that I think it over a little more, I suppose that if this is literally "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," gosh knows what sort of awful, terrible person might show up at a library. Perhaps someone would delete the earlier remark for me? I've always respected the LDS for their wholesome lifestyles (even if I'm too attached to coffee to ever become LDS myself), and wouldn't want to create difficulties for the folks at BYU.-- Oliveleaf4 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Rachel is a positive contributor. Sure there are missteps, but those can be worked through without going to the nuclear option. Similar to Rhododendrites, I would strongly urge Rachel to institute strict standards for the content she and her students produce and to keep a very close editorial eye on her students' edits, but overall I see her work as a net positive. Curbon7 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditionally support a time-limited topic ban provided that the topic ban is interpreted in such a way as not to preclude commonsensically non-church-related topics such as the Bakemono no e which according to a presentation here [36] she worked with. All university libraries have a lot of holdings, and there are many ways she could continue to be a productive WiR without getting into Mormon archaeology and stuff. I also think some sort of restrictions or advisories/warnings for her student helpers could be worth considering. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I had been seriously considering striking my vote for several potential reasons including RH’s cooperativeness, the issue of proportionality, and the fact that this could set a dangerous precedent based on certain statements by a few of the most aggressive supporters. However, given 1) the apparent interactions between Rachel Helps (wearing whichever hat) and other AML-related persons of interest and 2) the apparent inability on the part of the quality-control system to effectively handle the volume of contestable changes being made by the BYU group (which is by no means the latter’s fault per se, but there is still much room for improvement).
      At the same time, I am not completely convinced that a community-imposed topic ban is the best solution and I am interested in seeing more discussion. And possibly a “no consensus for now” close that allows RH and the BYU group time to further improve their practices, because I do believe there is a possible overlap between the desire of LDS scholars and The Encyclopedia as a whole in terms of documenting LDS topics more completely. And it does sound like a lot of the LDS content had been start-class poorly sourced and OR type stuff from novice editors, the same sort of stuff that you often see in Indian local articles and Judaism articles.
      However, I think the proposal about Thmazing is ripe for a close. The community, including yours truly, has a dim opinion of the behaviors that he’s engaged in, amply. And while I’m concerned about the AML situation I would like to see more evidence of any systematic collusion.
      RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm the one who opened the COIN in 2020. If Rachel would have simply agreed that she and her students would place a COI notice on article talk pages, I wouldn't be here. But she repeatedly resorted to arguing that it wasn't strictly required, so she wasn't going to comply with the request that she do so. Multiple other WiRs came in arguing that requiring her to do so would threaten the WiR system; they're here, too, opposing this. I hate to lose the BYU folks' contributions, which I believe are generally helpful, and which we'll probably lose if there's a Tban. But until Rachel agrees to disclose on article talk, even though not required to, I'm a support for a topic ban from LDS articles for Rachel and her students. Rachel Helps (BYU), please, just agree to disclose. It's such a small request. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point I'm happy to comply, the difference between the TOS and the guideline seems like a hill I don't feel like dying on right now. Just tell me how you want me to do it. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sincerely glad to hear it. Best practices, even if not required, is a good thing for someone who is a WiR and in education to try to follow. You and your students can disclose at article talk by adding the {{Connected contributor|User1=username}} template into the headers. The first person to edit a particular article can create the banner and put their own username as User1, and others who follow along can just insert |User2=, etc. There's documentation for other parameters at Template:Connected_contributor, but really I'm satisfied with a simple list of COI contributors.
      If you'll agree to make that routine going forward for all edits to articles related to BYU/LDS by you and your students, broadly construed, I'll strike my support for a tban. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valereee This seems reasonable. I'm curious what the threshold would be for adding the template. I ask because I've often seen Rachel reverting vandalism or other unhelpful edits or just fixing a source here and there. A quick look at her contributions shows that there are over 900 articles where she's made only 1 or 2 edits. It should be possible to find the intersection of her edits with articles within the LDS wikiproject, but I would expect the list of articles to be at least several hundred long. Should there be some threshold for what constitutes a substantive edit, or would you prefer having her place the template even for minor edits? Or would a more narrow range of articles be reasonable, like articles specifically related to the BYU, LDS Church, BYU people, etc.? ~Awilley (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Awilley, just off the top of my head: any edit that could reasonably be marked as minor -- typo fixes, grammar fixes, expanding or combining or renaming a reference -- doesn't need a COI tag. If there's content work, and it's related to BYU/LDS, tag it. Willing to be persuaded that this isn't the appropriate threshold, though! I wouldn't want to have to tag an article talk every time I edited something for the first time, that would double the work on many minor edits and maybe discourage me from making them. I don't want this to be onerous, as I do value the contributions these folks are making, and I appreciate BYU's willingness to fund a WiR to provide access to its records. Valereee (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valereee, why not make it required? What harm would that do? It seems rather bizarre to make it a condition when it's not a requirement, especially for so qualified an editor as Rachel, who is a huge asset here. (We aren't making it a condition for other COI editors, many of whom have dubious motives, making the difference in treatment even more bizarre.) The solution is to make it required for all COI editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valjean: - To make this a "requirement" rather than currently what it is as a "best practice," would require community consensus. No one person can make it a requirement. Someone would have to initiate an RFC. And there is probably good reason for this not be a requirement as deemed by the community. For me, the reason for "strongly discouraged" (or whatever) is probably to cover most of the circumstances, with some flexibility, in contrast to overbearing rigidity. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As said in the opening of The Warriors (film): Can you dig it? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Steve. I understand and largely agree about the proper procedure. What considerations might there be against making it a requirement? What harm would it do? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe I indicated the potential harm. With the wording as it is, there is some flexibility rather than strong rigidity. The community seems to operate best with flexibility. In any case, this is veering off topic in this forum. You might want to open a discussion about this elsewhere. Maybe the Village Pump or the COI talk page or wherever else? Also, anyone feel free to hat this part of this ANI. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Valjean, because we'll never get buy in from other WiRs. Unfortunately it's just that simple.
      The thing is, it doesn't need to be required in order for it to be best practices, and when multiple other editors are requesting you to do something that isn't strictly required in policy and only costs you three seconds of time, why would you not want to comply with those requests? Valereee (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure where to respond here, but yes, I'm happy to comply and talk to other WiRs about best practices. I just told my students that we're going to include talk page connected contributor banners from today, and it will probably take a few days for everyone to start using them (one of my students is only working on Fridays this semester). I can do the pages we've worked on in the past--does anyone know if there is a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category? Or I can dedicate a few minutes each day working on it over the summer. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category
      You could try a WP:BOTREQUEST. Paradoctor (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      AWB is also an option where you can make semiautomated edits to pages based on an intersection of categories. Like pages in the LDS Wikiproject that you have edited. Ping me on me talk page if you want help. ~Awilley (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Vanamonde93. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Vanamonde93 and Awilley Springee (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, broadly construed.While it's true that her userpage is a whole heap of disclosure, the real problem is her (undisclosed) willingness to encourage other's undisclosed COI. Per Fram and Levivich: in Effect. ——Serial Number 54129 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the reasoning of Levivich - which I find particularly alarming due to the walled-garden character of a lot of BYU articles. Simonm223 (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose per Vanamode93. Even if the COI stuff is properly resolved, or Rachel Phelps is topic-banned, we still have a massive number of LDS topics with no critical sources. This does not necessarily mean that the articles will improve. As a religious editor myself, it can sometimes take me up to an hour to find a non-fringe scholarly source to support whatever perspective I want represented. This is frustrating, but I do not try to bend the rules if I cannot find a reliable source mainstream enough to support a pro-religious perspective. See WP:NOTTRUTH for more information. However, I am opposed to a topic-ban because in my experience, student editors tend to do such a terrible job following policy, that I cannot support a topic-ban without us at least doing something about the WikiEd program as a whole. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose it's possible that some of the student employees being paid by the BYU Library to edit Wikipedia are also involved in WikiEd somehow through their regular classes, but this is the first time I've seen someone bring up WikiEd as a problem here. Scorpions1325, since it's important enough to inform your vote, could you explain what the connection is? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Forgive me. I misspoke. I am saying that it is not wise to let people employed at universities or anywhere else edit here for pay if they are not well-versed on policy, which is the case of BYU's students. At WP:AFC I found myself removing WP:PRIMARY and non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources every day. Paid editors, disclosed or not, tend to cause time-consuming work. Being a Wikipedia editor is something that requires commitment. Sometimes, learning the ropes can take months. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've read this over four times and no matter how I look at it, you seem to be arguing in favor of restrictions (or rather, that it would be "not wise" to oppose restrictions in this specific paid editor situation, where we agree that there are problems). But maybe that's just a sign that I should have shut up an hour ago and left this for the closer. Which I'll do now, with apologies for dragging this on longer. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a yes, but only if situation. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy Break (4)

    • Oppose at the present time. Having taken the time to read through the majority of this and the previous thread, my impression, bluntly speaking, is that the complained of behaviours are a tempest in a teapot. There are things I would see RH change in her approach (most of which I see a willingness from her to change, even if some of those concessions have come grudingly). But the proposed sanction is grossly out of proportion withth the conduct, as well as any demonstrable indication of bad faith conduct or IDHT/ineptitude.
      Futher, I'm concerned about the lack of firm nexus between any problem behaviour (to the extent it really is a problem) and the breadth of the subject matter covered by the proposed TBAN, as well as the fact that all of this is taking place in the context of the larger cluster of community discussions relating to BYU, which has often produced overzealous reactions that seem at least partially predicated on the presumption that our wiki colleagues employed by educational insitutions associated with religious traditions should be shown an extra layer of skepticism towards their neutrality, as a matter of course. Of course I can't know with any certainty which (if any) of those community members expressing concerns at RH's behaviour are analyzing her actions under this lens, but having looked at the facts myself, I don't see nearly enough to support such an aggresive sanction against an editor who is generally agreed to be productive and collaborative.
      At the same time, I'm not deaf the appeals that COI restraints are meant to be applied proactively, and there are moments where Rachel's comments drift towards a laisez-faire attitude for these rules, which is potentially very problematic for someone supervising other paid (and presumably often wiki-inexperienced) editors. So I would urge her to adopt a more active, deferential, and "better safe than sorry" disposition to these principlies, as I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would quickly flip their !vote if there continue to be issues here. But at the moment, I'm completely disinclined to the support the proposed TBAN on the specific behaviour and evidence raised here. SnowRise let's rap 22:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on the basis that it seems a no brainer after several hours of digging through this, and per Levivich in particular. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I fail to immediately identify misconduct. I also am a Wikimedian in Residence, and Rachel is my colleague and one of the more active contributors to the meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network. Here are some options for improving the situation:
      1. Advocate for more clear rules for institutional partnerships I do not clearly identify a transgression in this case. I think the problem here is dissatisfaction with the existing guidelines for institutional partnerships. Wikipedia will fail without institutional expert partnerships. We are in an existential crisis for lack of such partnerships. We need many, many more of them. Develop and impose any rules for such partnerships, but whatever the case, have clarity. I support clear directions for Rachel to change behavior, but the topic ban proposed is not a fit because those are for misconduct. I do not see willful misconduct. This user for years has tried to follow the rules and has brought in a lot of university funding and labor to comply with the rules. The user expresses intent to follow any suggested rules or clarifications.
      2. Pressure the Wikimedia Foundation to invest in partnership infrastructure In The Signpost this week WMF CEO asks how to get more personality into Wikipedia. Beyond individual personalities, there are institutional personalities which have major impact including universities, museums, research institutes, and other expert organizations. The WMF has never collaborated with Wikimedians in Residence to develop foundational infrastructure for growing these kinds of partnerships. Institutions are going to invest in digitial media, and when an organization has $100,000 to spend on media, it will be divided among Instagram, Twitter, Wikipedia and the rest. There are lots of reasons why Wikipedia is best for organizations like universities, but it is really hard to crowdsource that argument without WMF backing. Wikipedia should often be getting the biggest slice of communication funding from institutions, but it rarely does, and I regret when universities give money to commercial social media platforms when Wikipedia is a better fit. Considering that Wikimedian in Residence programs attract millions of dollars of Wikimedia investment a year, there should be more obvious and public WMF investment in keeping such resource inflows healthy and regulated in partnership with wiki editors. Take this case to the WMF and ask for help in securely keeping institutional partnerships regulated.
      3. Bring discussions to the user group meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network is the official Wikimedia registered organization for managing Wikimedians in Residence. It is a voluntary membership organization, and it has no budget or resources other than volunteer participation, but it is a hub for centering Wikimedian in Residence guidelines and enforcement. This case with Rachel is not a one-off case. There is no hope of crowdsourcing individual review of all the Wikimedians in Residence in all the projects at scale. I am not saying that anyone has to go through the Wiki in Residence organization, but it is an opportunity to negotiate global multicultural norms perpetually when there are not other established channels for doing this. If anyone is able to draft some policy or guidelines, then discussing it with Wikimedians in Residence seems like a reasonable next step, and that organization presents the opportunity for doing so.
      4. Avoid conflating marketing with other kinds of conflict As a Wikimedian in Residence I regret that we in Wikipedia lack the language and experience to distinguish WP:SPAs who promote products, brands, and autobiographies versus editors who are attempting to share subject matter expertise in collaboration with reputable institutions. We currently use the term "conflict of interest" or COI for both kinds of behavior, but I do not find that language helpful because the situations are so different. The first is 99% of COI, and 99% unhelpful, while institutional partnerships are 1% of COI, but 99% helpful. The discussion I see above conflates promotionalism with institutional transfer of knowledge. I agree that both should be regulated, but I do not like seeing university staff treated like they are selling herbal supplements to cure cancer. Considering the high value of good institutional partnerships, I wish that evaluation and enforcement of such partnerships could begin with more focused rules than the ones we apply to spammers. Framing partnerships as a type of spam brings unnecessary negativity into the conversations.
      Bluerasberry (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network is the official Wikimedia registered organization for managing Wikimedians in Residence" I agree with the bulk of Bluerasberry's well-considered points (the last bullet point in particular), but no, WREN is not the manager of WiRs, "official " or otherwise. Most WiRs do not participate in WREN, and none that I know of have ever been "managed" by it - certainly none of my several residencies have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "we in Wikipedia lack the language and experience to distinguish WP:SPAs who promote products, brands, and autobiographies versus editors who are attempting to share subject matter expertise in collaboration with reputable institutions." please substantiate this claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: One way to substantiate the claim is to distinguish the spammers versus Wikimedians in Residence. Like I said, "The first is 99% of COI, and 99% unhelpful, while institutional partnerships are 1% of COI, but 99% helpful." When the process, circumstances, and outcomes are so different, why apply the same abstract evaluation to both?
    What kind of response would be helpful? Bluerasberry (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And which category do Rachel Helps (BYU)'s AML related edits fall under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: We do not have guidelines for regulating what paid Wikipedia editors do away from their paid roles, but if we did develop such guidelines, then those would be Wikimedian in Residence rules.
    Without pay, she created a biography of someone who does research in her field. This is common among wiki editors. Later, circumstances changed, and the subject of the biography became a professional colleague. Spammers edit on the scale of hours for a few thousand dollars. Rachel has been a Wikimedian in Residence for 8 years, and has fundraised hundreds of thousands of dollars for wiki development in the process. It is to be expected that if one edits in a field at this scale then distant colleagues will sometimes become closer. This is not comparable to a spammer getting a one-day commission to write the biography of a CEO, but the tools in this evaluation are those same spammer rubrics. This is not a case of a spammer being negligent to comply, or dodging disclosure. I think she tried to comply in an uncertain environment where rules are unclear. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most spammers on wikipedia are unpaid. Rachel Helps (BYU) was negligent to comply *and* dodged disclosure (they have admitted to both), have you not been paying attention? I was not aware of that extensive fundraising, can you substantiate that with sources? In regards to "We do not have guidelines for regulating what paid Wikipedia editors do away from their paid roles" we actually do, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Horse Eye's Back: If you want of anyone else wants to check my attention then I can meet anyone for video chat and post the recording here. Humans are made for voice to voice discussion. Much is lost by posting text to a talk page.
    University staff in the United States consume ~US$100k/year each and Rachel has been going 8 years. Even part time this is $100ks for Wikipedia development.
    Rachel's "confession" is humility and willingness to agree to any regulation, not an admission of negligence or misconduct. One deficiency of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is that it does not explain why a paid editor cannot simply disclose the entirety of their activity. If it were allowed, all Wikimedians in Residence would want all of their edits automatically highlighted to achieve indisputable universal disclosure. Wiki reviewers do not want to maximize disclosure because over-disclosure is a flood of excess information. Rachel did appropriate activity. The problem is not her behavior, but that our evaluation process confuses and fails to distinguish random unwanted spammers versus institutional partnerships which follow the rules. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But Helps engaged in unwanted spam and didn't follow the rules, thats why we're here. Also note that what you just described is not fundraising. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I can ask—if you've only fail[ed] to immediately identify misconduct, I'm confused that you've !voted as Oppose while the post itself reads as a Comment. Remsense诉 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Remsense: Can you ask your question in other words? Correct - I see no misconduct, and correct - my oppose vote comes with a list of points which, depending on perspective, either explain how to prevent problems, or which describe the cause of problems. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I interpreted immediately as meaning you didn't spend time going through the details of the case. Remsense诉 20:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Informed meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network See meta:Talk:Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @RadioactiveBoulevardier: Remember last week when you said "citation needed" up above? Here it is :-) Levivich (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At the time wasn’t it WP:CRYSTAL? 😁 RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well...no, not really. The last time this was brought up with this editor, that's exactly what we saw. Many Wikipedians in Residence see this as a threat to their project. Valereee (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, given the laundry list of problems assembled by editors such as levivich and the lack of opposes that actually address the problem editing. XeCyranium (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Vanamonde93 and Rhododendrites. A lot of this seems to be bureaucracy for the sake of it, or being punitive rather than focusing on improving the wiki. If an editor is receptive to concerns and trying to fix mistakes, punishing them harder seems counterproductive (And is much less rope than we usually give). The fact that we have this much discussion on the topic suggests to me we need to revisit COIN policies and tighten them to be clearer. @Bluerasberry:'s suggestions may also be worth discussing further. Soni (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Vanamonde93 and Rhododendrites. I'm not minimizing the fact that there have been problematic edits, but I believe Rachel understands the issues and is capable of editing in the future without causing further problems. I also believe a topic ban would be harmful in that it would prevent her from helping out at those articles, as I believe she would. And a topic ban should not be punitive; it should be done to address a problem the community cannot resolve in other ways. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - COI is to be declared, which is done. Editing is to be factual and neutrally=phrased, which doesn't seem to be a problem. So what is the actual objection here? Carrite (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I don't think COI is the real issue here as I think that's been clearly disclosed. Additionally Rachel Helps is being held accountable for the actions of other editors down to them being rude in discussions. I think there is something to the NPOV issues, and one of the example edits I've seen has not been how *I* would have re-written that section, but have there been substantive attempts and failure to reach consensus at article level by anyone before escalating it to ANI? It appears not. Battleofalma (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support Per evidence and COI, but I am not sure about the topic ban. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given all the evidence and what happened, There may have been something bad going on which proposed this discussion, but I give a weak support because that they may have an COI, but if she says her COI is "undisclosed", it does not really matter if or if not this should be a TBAN due to the COI TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for Thmazing

    There is near-unanimous consent for a topic ban for Thmazing on Mormonism, broadly construed. The comments provide enough evidence that the community supports the wider ban; an even wider ban (an indefinite one on all topics, I presume), as is suggested by some editors for blatantly violating some basic Wikipedia policies/guidelines, might be in the future. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • Support This user has a large number of COIs, and refuses to discuss them. They are still editing, but will no longer engage in questions regarding editing about themself and their friends. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As he is a former president of AML and current Managing Editor of its journal Irreantum, I see Thmazing as the "highest-ranking" editor in this COI group (that I know of), and thus the most culpable. Far more culpable than Rachel Helps, who is listed as AML's Discord Admin (and I believe is a current or past board member). Thmazing should have been the one to disclose, require the disclosure, or otherwise reign in, all this undisclosed COI editing coming from AML board members, staff, and other associated editors. A TBAN from AML is really too little IMO, I would at least TBAN from all of Mormonism (same scope as Rachel Helps) for the same reasons: prevent him from not only editing about AML but also about its "product," which is Mormon literature, and thus by extension, Mormonism itself. Heck, due to his high ranking nature and his particularly obstructive involvement in this entire fiasco, I'd also just support a straight site ban. But support as certainly better than nothing. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is phrased a little confusingly... until the end of that paragraph, I thought that you had declared yourself the current managing editor of Irreantum.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That would have been a real plot twist! 😂 Thanks for pointing it out, I added a couple words to clarify. Levivich (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What exactly do you mean by by extension, Mormonism itself? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per sound analysis above. I looked at his last article Draft:Mike Pekovich, originally created in the mainspace: it is blatantly promotional ("His work on woodcraft [...] has influenced thousands of woodworkers over decades") as much as badly sourced (two non-independent primary sources). Cavarrone 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) ADDENDUM: I also support a wider topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed, per Levivich, starship.paint and Steve Quinn. Also based on my striked content I suspect there could be other COIs in the mix (in addition to some obvious WP:CIR issues). --Cavarrone 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The draft you link to is problematic, but I don't see how it relates to the AML. Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, I had taken for granted that the subject was an LSD member. I've strikken the side comment, which is btw telling of this user's way of editing. --Cavarrone 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • If anything that speaks to a broader issue, perhaps include a ban on article creation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support maybe they will miraculously recover from the unfortunate illness which prevents their typing, but hopefully they take their "breathing" time to learn how to not (Personal attack removed). In this particular case, however, Thmazing's obstructionist behaviour annoyed me enough to begin investigating in the first place, so perhaps we should thank him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @AirshipJungleman29: I've removed the personal attack. Please remain civil when describing behaviour from other editors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Femke: That's bollocks, mate colleague. We had our own page called that very thing which still directs to a page on meta. So AsJm29 should have called Thamazing a jerk, I guess. ——Serial Number 54129 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And there is a reason the meta page is no longer has that title. More people considered this a personal attack. Neither words are conducive to resolving issues of COI editing and civility on Thmazing's part. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per the above comments. Jessintime (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but per Levivich, would easily support more, as this is ridiculously lenient. Grandpallama (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the past president of Association of Mormon Letters shouldn't be editing articles about that group, but I'd like to have all such conflicted editors able to make suggestions and {{edit COI}} requests on the talk page. With niche subjects in particular, we need to balance our need for an accurate article against our desire to have the independent editors making the decisions about what to include. It's not ultimately helpful to the main goal if we TBAN anyone who actually knows anything about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If they are the only people who know the things about a subject, that subject may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage. It may have not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and may not be suitable encyclopedic matter. —Alalch E. 23:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support lack of candor and accountability, repeatedly citing their own off-wiki blog posts, even this topic ban is too lenient, it should be a topic ban from Mormonism at least. starship.paint (RUN) 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the topic ban described above per all the comments about COI and lack of candor. I also support a broader ban to include all LDS/Mormon topics per Starship.paint. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the subject obviously has skin in the game regarding AML and they fail to adhere to COI policy. I agree that the ban should include all LDS/Mormon topics. They do not understand how to edit according to policies and guidelines. Also, I am looking for evidence that they actually cited content in articles with their own blogposts. If this is true then that is totally unacceptable as one of the primary no-no's on Wikipedia. Anyone have any diffs about them citing article content with their blog posts? I read about it in the linked conversation but was unable to discern on which article(s) this happened. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: - So yes, it is true. Thmazing has been citing content with their blogposts. This is disconcerting. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gamaliel: @Oliveleaf4: I think you may have voted in the wrong section? This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, @Viriditas: might want to re-evaluate the "per Gamaliel" vote. ~Awilley (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gamaliel: @Oliveleaf4: I also think you may have voted in the wrong section! This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, @Viriditas: might want to re-evaluate the "per Gamaliel" vote. ---06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Steve Quinn (talk)[reply]
    @Awilley: @Steve Quinn: Thank you! You are correct, and I've moved my !vote accordingly. Gamaliel (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Gamaliel. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as per Gamaliel also. Telling the BYU Wikimedian in Residence not to edit on Mormonism? We don't want to go there, folks. If we need to work with them on some aspects of wiki policy, let's not harangue them online, let's arrange for an experienced person to meet up with them. I might have a chance to go out to Utah next year, and I'd be happy to sit down with them and edit. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why don't we want to "go there"? What are you implying? The community has been trying to "work with them" on aspects of policy for years. It hasn't worked. Why are you so confident your in-person visit is going to be successful? Do you have a track record of success with such things? jps (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is creepy to offer to meet in real life with editors you don't know to help them avoid a potential topic ban. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 Goldsztajn (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fwiw this is a WiR at a university whom anyone can walk up to and not some editor editing off their couch at home so if anything the suggestion raises the opposite sort of sussiness. Anyway… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      One word: safeguarding. One wants to interact with another Wikipedian one does so on Wikipedia or at an event where Wikipedians have *themselves* *chosen* to attend. We should not be treating casual contact amongst editors in RL with anything other than the most serious concern for unintended consequences. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Am attempting to support efforts by a WiR, not give them a bad time! (Have attempted to comment in the other section.)Oliveleaf4 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The evidence is clear here as well. Currently this editor is a net-negative to Wikipedia and cost us time and energy. I cannot understand this continual impulse to let folk get away with bad behaviour and breaking policy that are clearly understood and followed by the majority of editors. That was a long conversation that was held in 2020 by administration, it was very clearly stated. Combined with the analysis done recently, makes it clear as day. scope_creepTalk 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is quite rude and suggests an egregious misreading of my editing history. Some cherrypicked flaws in my editing past do not a "net-negative to Wikipedia" make. Has anyone actually looked at my entire editing history or are you just believing what you're told?
      I appreciate the fellow above who admitted he had made erroneous assumptions about an article I had started but his errors were more numerous than the one he apologized for.
      I know this isn't the place for it, but I feel obliged to point out that what's happening here is largely an on-Wikipedia doxxing of people who, in good faith, made it possible to do so.
      (Also, I might add that the idea that I've only heard about Fram in one Discord server and that you can guess which one it is is charming. She has quite the reputation as I'm sure many of you know.)
      Anyway, carry on. If you could do it without the ad hominem attacks, however, I would appreciate it. Thmazing (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thmazing: No it isn't. I did look at your entire editing history and checked a whole bunch of it as I work on article reviewing, before I commented here. I read the discussion prior to this as well. The comment is probably is a bit harsh but you made the concious choice to ignore policy and your response hasn't been particularly positive. I work up at conflict of interest board also and I see the same kind of response by coi editors every time. I am sick to death of it dude. I want you to experience a moment of catharsis and undergo an epiphany, improve and stop breaking WP:COI and particularly WP:NPOV. I only state this because of your previous work. scope_creepTalk 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Same general rationale as my !vote regarding Rachel Helps, but with Thmazing there appears to be even less mitigating circumstances as they have not engaged with this discussion in a remotely satisfactory fashion, whereas RH has at least attempted to make amends. signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Mormonism, per above. BilledMammal (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm here particularly because of the refusal to acknowledge the problem. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I haven’t yet decided what I think about the proposal for Rachel Helps, but given the level of incivility and defensiveness Thmazing shows on their user talk, combined with their substantive behavior with content and CoI, I think a topic ban might be warranted. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed. Even on top of the obvious COI issue for the reasons explained in my reply regarding Helps above, their replies on their talk page about it are not acceptable and show both an unwillingness to assume good faith and a WP:BATTLEGROUND view of Wikipedia, which is particularly incompatible with COI editing: This they thought better of and replaced, but the replacement is no better. I understand your feelings may be hurt and I don't want to pile on and Wikipedia is not a sport where people should strive to win or lose and I apologize if I made you feel you needed to win are not acceptable ways to respond to a serious concern. This is in some ways even worse - I'm particularly concerned by I think you might feel better about things if you report me. I mean—you're Fram! You have a reputation to maintain! (I was lurking on a Discord channel earlier today and you came up. "What a coincidence!" I said to myself) coupled with I'm not sure how you all ended up here (perhaps you're on another Discord channel complaining about me?) - I'm not sure how to interpret those two sentences other than, well, 1. Thmazing believes that people coordinate Wikipedia edits on Discord, and that this is common and normal enough to immediately leap to that assumption when COI concerns come up, and 2. Thmazing themselves is in a Discord channel which was discussing Fram around that time. The logical conclusion, to me, seems to be that Thmazing leaped to that conclusion because that is, in fact, the nature of the discord channel referenced in the first sentence, and they assume that everyone else is doing the same thing because they're approaching Wikipedia as a battleground. --Aquillion (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In fairness, we did have a massive controversy which involved harassment and Fram, and all that seemed to come from that is that Fram has a reputation.... for being a punching bag whenever he inserts himself in anything involving any sort of controversy and getting fucked over whenever his name comes up in conjunction with anything remotely near WP:HARASS-related content (though in this case I will defend his block as justified, just not as performed by Primefac). This is not to justify Fram's actions or exonerate Thmazing, whose actions smack of EEML or WTC just from a brief glance, and get just as ugly as them if scrutinised. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thmazing has been creating a lot of redirects such as "John grisham" (note the capitalization) and seems to be unaware that these are superfluous (unless I’m very much mistaken) due to case insensitivity. Is there a way to bulk RfD like multiple AfDs? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RadioactiveBoulevardier: - actually Thmazing is correct in this regard, so no deletions should occur. For example, our current TFA George Griffith versus George griffith. starship.paint (RUN) 12:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? If I put “George griffith” into the search bar and press the button (ignoring suggestions ofc), I get sent to the article. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, we did different ways, @RadioactiveBoulevardier:. I typed the URL with "George_griffith". [37] starship.paint (RUN) 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, there’s a reason these redirects are not created systematically. Still, I suppose they’re cheap. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I know I said I didn't plan to butt in again, but about an hour after I posted, a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity and describing me and my evil ways and nefarious means. (I will not be providing a link.) But the thing that made me laugh was his primary argument that I have a financial motivation in all this and it made me wonder if that's what everyone here has been thinking? Finances have always been the way I think of COI and you won't find edits where I cross that line. See if you can see what these have in common:
    Money made editing Irreantum: $0
    Money made as president of AML: $0
    Money made editing Peculiar Pages: $0
    Money made editing Wikipedia: $0
    I suppose in my mind these are all part of my efforts to make the world better using the tools I have. Anyway, if that was the (unspoken) subcutaneous concern, I thought I should address it. Thmazing (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say "a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity" you do realize all that information can be found on your userpage? Jessintime (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The post at…that place makes some easily verifiable claims. Other sources indicate you wholly own Peculiar Pages and have a senior position at Irreantum, so the claim that no money explicitly changed hands is not only irrelevant, but indicative of the reasons why editors (including myself) think a topic ban might be helpful to the project.
    Like, unilaterally removing a notability tag with the diff summary you did? Going about it that way is horribly disruptive to processes and doing so with a CoI is unconscionable to anyone engaged in the NPP or deletion processes (as I am).
    And by the way, unlike Nihonjoe you by definition can’t be outed, at least not while you have links to your public-facing socials and your personal website on your website. That’s not outing, it’s muckraking. If you want to claim any sort of protection for your identity, blank your user page.
    Frankly, if I had a mop I’d have given you a 24-hour block for the particular flavor of calculated incivility you’ve shown multiple editors on your user talk.
    Through your repeatedly telling people things to the general effect of "I am not a crook! Was it because of [insert personal attack] that you thought so?" when you know as well as they and now we do what the diffs say, you’ve turned a not that big complaint into something that a pseudonymous WikiHater thought was worth posting about.
    In fact, it should have been dealt with sooner. An admin should come along and close this because the more people vote !support, the more I get unpleasant feelings related to having just reread To Kill a Mockingbird
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thmazing: - first, money doesn’t have to be made while editing. The very existence of the Wikipedia pages, in a promotional way, may generate money for the entities. That isn’t my biggest concern, though. That would be that within the last year you literally cited your own blog, multiple times [38] within the Elias: An Epic of the Ages. One month after that you declared that it was your blog [39]. Citing yourself is blindingly inappropriate. starship.paint (RUN) 02:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've copped to that and apologized and not touched the article since. I hope that these (rare) instances will lead to other editors improving the articles with sources they see as appropriate. But of course I'm not going back to them myself. I can't imagine a better way to get more people mad at me.
      Also, I hope if I'm not responding quickly there aren't more accusations of me avoiding the conversation. This is a dreadfully busy moment for me in almost every way. Plus, most of the commentary hasn't really been to me, more at me. Thank you, @Starship.paint for being so civil. (And I know you understand busy!) Thmazing (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, hey---serious question:
      Considering how often I could have cited myself, I rarely have. Usually I use some other source because it seems like the right thing to do. Those few exceptions are for information I didn't think was available elsewhere. I appreciate people don't appreciate the exception and I'm suitably cowed, but that gets to my question.
      There's been effort to have scientists and historians and others bring their expertise to Wikipedia. And I have to imagine, especially with a scientist bringing new information into the world, if they do so they have little choice but to cite themselves. Although I've generally avoided citing myself (as the rarity of instances proves) I've always thought that this drive to get wild-haired scientists to bring their work to the public via Wikipedia suggested a backside-covering precedent. I wonder how this understanding of the intersection between expertise and COI may have changed? Thmazing (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Scientists do not need to cite themselves to contribute their expertise. Science topics generally disallow primary sources (research articles), so adding info sourced to one's own research publications isn't compliant with PAGs anyway. Issues would really only arise when editing a very narrow subject, when the editor is so prolific writing review papers that all the most up-to-date consensus info is cited to them, or when the editor has a huge number of collaborators and can't avoid citing one of them. JoelleJay (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Thmazing: - I am afraid your response and past actions show what seems to me a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines. By citing your own self-published blog for information I didn't think was available elsewhere, you are violating WP:COI, WP:SPS (part of WP:V) and also WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV). It is my opinion that any topic that desperately needs your blog as a source probably does not meet WP:GNG for an article on Wikipedia, and any article that meets WP:GNG does not need your blog. starship.paint (RUN) 00:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not quite what I said. All the articles are worthy of existing sans me. I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. I now understand I should not have done that. Lesson learned. If my goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia, such edits would be greater than one one-thousandth of my total edits. I mean---I've written a lot of stuff. I've written about thousands of books and hundreds of movies and plenty of other stuff. If I were the sly ne'er-do-well described in this discussion, you could find hundreds more examples of self-citation to harp on. Since that's not that case, I would greatly appreciate a bit of WP:AGF. I'm trying to be a good citizen. I believe deeply in the value and importance of Wikipedia and my edit history proves I have added to that value. I'm not touching the articles I've been accused of COI on, even when it's absurd and I have stuff to add. For instance, I had collected a bunch of more recent sources on Brad Teare but I've only posted them to the talk page, even though I can't imagine a reason why I shouldn't be able to edit that page. Thmazing (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. That's what WP:NPOV says not to do: include details that aren't in secondary sources that you personally think are valuable to someone visiting the page. If the only person who wrote about a specific detail is you, then you're not the person who should be adding that detail to the Wikipedia article. What you did there was use Wikipedia to promote your own viewpoint--to promote details nobody else thought were important enough to publish. That is "sly ne're-do-well." That's not being a good citizen, that's putting your head in the sand and pretending that bias and COI don't apply to you. That you don't understand or accept this, is why we have COI rules: people with COI have biases that prevent them from viewing something objectively; in particular, COI comes with a bias that makes everyone think their COI doesn't come with a bias, or the bias doesn't matter. It's inherent, it's why COI rules exist in the first place. Levivich (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Thmazing: - you've asked for a bit of WP:AGF, I assure you that's exactly what I have given to you. I've never called you a sly ne'er-do-well, neither have I said that you have a goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia. I simply think that you do not know (yet) if you should, or should not, add certain information to an article, per WP:DUE and WP:SPS, which you should thoroughly review. That is evident from your response: I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. starship.paint (RUN) 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for disruption and ignoring NPOV. If Thmazing thinks Fram's comment is unclear[40] or that the draft linked above is NPOV, Fram's command of English, or at least the formal English in encyclopedias, may be better. It seems like a sarcastic comment to me, but either way there's been enough egregious behaviour that the camel was crushed long before the Belgian comment. Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, tagging is still editing. 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Novo TapeMy Talk Page 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed: Thmazing says that their COI editing is a very low percentage of their Wikipedia edits — 0.15%, according to their completely made-up estimate. If that's the case, and it's not a big deal to avoid all the pages where COI is likely, then a topic ban should be easy to comply with. In general, I'm unimpressed with Thmazing's statements — if they're still calling the COI concerns "absurd" after all this conversation, then they're not getting the point. If they really want to avoid a topic ban, being less defensive and dismissive would help. Toughpigs (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The conversation with Fram (linked above by Novo Tape) shows that Thmazing prefers deflecting away from the issue of declaring COI by essentially verbally assaulting Fram. (Redacted) Being snarky doesn't work. (Redacted) One more thing, this is not social website where we host links from personal blogs or links from other trivial venues. Thmazing, try doing some reading to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I suggest you start with reading WP:N and then follow the links from there. But, candidly, I don't see that as happening. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed: Note that this is an ongoing issue, Thmazing continues to join in discussions without disclosing relevant conflicts of interest [41] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support broadly construed. Not merely the absolutely blatant COI, but their refusal to acknowledge it, let alone address it, means that the community must do it for them. They chose... poorly. ——Serial Number 54129 18:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Serial. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Putting aside the clear inappropriateness of citing to themselves (and to a blog in doing so, no less), and the contributing without disclosing that and other conflicts of interest regarding an organization in which they had a leading role (with both activities frankly such plainly unacceptable behaviours under fundamental policies that we can only assume bad faith or WP:CIR concerns, either one or the other), there is also just the issue of mammoth amount of IDHT and pushback since that conduct has been revealed.
      On the other hand, as easy and as full-throated as my support is for the tban from AML subject matter, I am equally opposed to a ban from Mormon/LDS topics generally; the implicit notion that a person who cares enough about a belief system (religious or otherwise) to join a body which studies and/or celebrates said belief system thereby accrues an automatic COI in regard to that belief system is clearly an untenable standard for this project. SnowRise let's rap 09:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Snowrise. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Canvassing concerns

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

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

    As I mentioned above, I was alerted to the existence of these threads by pings or mentions because I had participated in a previous discussion about you and Rachel Helps.
    • January 9th AN/I thread: That thread was actually about topic banning or admonishing you for hounding Helps. You say I took a strong position, but I didn't even !vote. Here's the only comment I made in that thread (replying inline to another user to gently correct what I saw as a misrepresentation). Here's the comment that mentioned me in that discussion.
    • February-March VP/M thread: I got what looks like a more deliberate ping to that thread in this comment. You will undoubtedly find that suspicious because it was the same user who pinged me to the earlier thread. In any case, there seemed to be a lot of misunderstandings and accusations flying around, so I made a similarly meandering comment trying to clear up a few issues and replied to one user. Unfortunately I can't provide diffs to my two posts because they were caught up in an oversight, but if you scroll up from [42] you'll find it.
    • March 13 AN/I: I got pinged to the above thread by its creator in this diff. You can see my response above where I wrote, "in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor." I try to say something like that whenever I !vote on AN/I threads related to religion because I've recused myself from taking admin actions in that topic area.
    I didn't get any emails or off-wiki communication about these threads, and I'm not on any email lists or text threads or discord servers related to Wikipedia. From a search of my inbox, the last Wikipedia related email I received was in September 2023 from a user asking for details on how I created a certain .gif animation. As for why I chose to comment in the above threads: I have a soft spot when it comes to seeing gnomes getting attacked and sucked into wiki-drama.
    Speaking of pings and notifications, it looks like the "userlinks" templates you used above do not automatically generate pings, so I got no notification that you had opened this thread. You might want to consider officially notifying @BoyNamedTzu:. ~Awilley (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The community appears to have now endorsed my concerns around Help. I am disturbed that you are only now disclosing your BYU COI despite participating in a number of discussions about the BYU wikipedia editing program. Also, given what we now know clearly not a gnome and never was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also note that since pinging you to that first discussion [Hydrangeans] has disclosed a series of COIs. In hindsight that appears to be on-wiki canvassing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the canvassing issue you have is with [Hydrangeans], for the first two discussions, not Awilley. starship.paint (RUN) 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that. I was just writing that I'm disappointed in Awilley. In the Jan 9th thread, that's one BYU alum pinging another BYU alum for backup in a thread involving BYU's WiR, and none of the three of them disclosed it. In the VPM, again a BYU alum pings another BYU alum, again accusing HEB of "hounding" the BYU WiR, and again, neither of the BYU alums disclose their connection. This is all in an effort to shut down HEB when HEB was right all along about the COI, in fact it's a much bigger and broader COI issue, we now know, than just involving the BYU WiR. This was super deceitful. I understod when I read "I'm commenting here as an involved editor," and I thought, ah ha, that's why. This is very not kosher, you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater. In hindsight, we now know, that almost all of the people defending the BYU WiR from COI allegations were also BYU people (or AML people, or both). This was all highly deceptive, which is extra disappoint when it all comes from a Christian church (yeah I said it). Levivich (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that this is an issue of lack of disclosure of Awilley's part, which is, the more I think about it, pretty disturbing, for the reasons you mentioned. starship.paint (RUN) 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, with that fact pattern laid out Awilley's conduct looks like harassment. They selectively participated in discussions about topics they had a COI with at a time in which they were not generally active on wikipedia in order to confront or inhibit the work of another editor (me). That would be unbecoming of any editor, from an admin it really begs the question of whether they should remain an admin. It is par for the course for disruptive editors to cry "Harassment!" while engaging in harassment, but I rarely see an admin do it and never without consequences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater. We talked thoroughly on my userpage why the conflict of interest policy left me with the impression that it asked about current relationships and not terminated ones, and I apologized for that, both to you personally and in the Village Pump thread. This thread is the first that I learned Awilley had any connection to BYU. I pinged Awilley, along with Drmies and Mackensen, because they had participated in a past ANI thread about HEB and I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again. There are ways of communicating about COI other than by violating the harassment and privacy policies. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you pinged people because of their past interactions with me and not their past interactions with Rachel on a discussion purely about Rachel's conduct that is not appropriate. Especially if you did it because "I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again" that would be canvassing with a specific goal in mind, all three are admins, were you trying to get me blocked? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that at the time, you didn't know Awilley was a BYU alum. But Awilley knew. I now count at least half a dozen editors who have some affiliation with BYU/AML -- almost all of them current or former employees -- who engaged in discussions about undisclosed BYU/AML COI editing without disclosing their affiliation. If all of them were part of one single conspiracy, that would be bad. But if they all each independently decided to surreptitiously influence the COI investigation without disclosing their own COI, that's even worse. That's like: what the heck are they teaching at BYU, that there are so many BYU folks who don't seem to grasp basic ethics -- and not a matter of the wording of Wikipedia policies, or even ethics tied to any religion or culture, but cross-cultural basic ethics, like that if you are going to act as a "judge," "juror," or "witness," you'd better disclose your connection to the "defendant." That's so basic. Everyone involved in these discussions about BYU/AML COI who has any connection past or present with BYU or AML should disclose that, or else stay out of these discussions. And it seems like every day I'm learning of someone else who has been involved, has the connection, but didn't disclose. Levivich (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich, up until today I didn't know that [Hydrangeans] was a BYU alumnus. And frankly knowing it now doesn't really change anything for me. She's just an editor with whom I cross paths with occasionally. There's only one Wikipedia editor I've ever knowingly met in real life. We went to lunch together and had a nice talk. Maybe he was a BYU alumnus too; I don't actually know. And it doesn't matter. Editors on Wikipedia should be judged by their words and actions, not the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended. ~Awilley (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, judged for actions like choosing to participate in multiple discussions about undisclosed COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it was your alma mater (though I appreciate that you finally did). Levivich (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is being judged by the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended... They are being judged by their words and actions *alone*. Throwing out these red herrings and insinuations of bigotry against good faith editors is not constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and my concern at the time was that HEB pushed too hard, evening when not gaining support from other editors for their views (still feel that way, but it's not relevant here). This situation is different, and I feel seriously misled by Nihonjoe's failure to disclose their COI. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will happily acknowledge that Rachel is my friend and the person who recruited me to Wikipedia and taught me how to edit. When I have seen her being relentlessly bullied by other editors, I have defended her. She has never asked me to do this. She has never reuqested that i participate, in any way, in any discussion about her work. She has never canvassed me or anybody else that I know about in order to solicit responses or participation. But the grenades that you and others have thrown her way have a real life impact on an actual human being that I care about, and that often propels me to action. I am conversant enough with Wikipedia conventions to find my way here without being canvassed.
    I will soon be deactivating my account and leaving Wikipedia for good. I have no desire to continue to edit, and I will pledge to make no more edits to any pages. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And did you see it on the discord? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I did not see it on the Discord, which I have not participated in for months. I saw it in my real-life interactions with my friend. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth I hope you stick around, in the future please either avoid such crossovers between your personal life and wikipedia or disclose them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I don't think it was a valid question at all. I asserted, and continue to assert, that the way in which Thamazing reacted there shows a starkly WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to Wikipedia. And it seems a bit silly to bring up the fact that Nihonjoe is before ArbCom as if that is something people concerned about COIs might object to. It seems clear to me that this will (and should) end up before ArbCom as well - the problem is systematic and comparable to eg. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology; it is unlikely to be settled here. --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I started watching Thmazing's talk page back in January after I submitted evidence on AML COIs to ArbCom. JoelleJay (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rather hard to look at Nihonjoe's COI contributions and not notice the constant intersection with both Thmazing and the BYU editors. For example Annie Poon was created by Thmazing, with later important edits by Nihonjoe and Rachel Helps (BYU). Oh, Rachel Helps even sourced the article to two different non-WP:RS sources written by Thmazing[43]. Stellar work promoting AML editors in an article about an AML Award winning artist, not problematic COI editing at all. Same at Steven L. Peck, created by Thmazing, expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) with addition of a source written by Thmazing[44] (and e.g. a source written by Michael Austin, which whom she has a COI as well) , of course again a winner of an AML Award (as are Thmazing, Rachel Helps, Michael Austin). On other pages edited by Nihonjoe, I encountered Thmazing adding his own publications[45]. I have to say, Rachel Helps is rather fond of quoting Thmazing, she used him as a reference twice in List of Mormon cartoonists as well, next to of course the AML Awards. But Thmazing doesn't really need her help, he is perfectly capable of ading his own self-published work[46], again on a page edited by Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe as well. But it is a good reference, because that work won, you guessed it, an AML Award.
    Oh look, Dendō! Created by Rachel Helps, about an AML Award winning book where the Library that pays Rachel Helps owns the original artwork, and where Helps again uses Thmazing as a reference (among other not quite independent references as well). It's a walled garden which becomes very obvious once one looks at more and more articles edited by the same people referencing each other by name, each others publications, the organisations they're in, and so on... Fram (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that was a valid question after all. Please explain what you mean by this. I would also note that if you want "to acknowledge the real elephant in the room" it would be helpful to actually name the elephant... In plain English what is the concern? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "It seems that was a valid question after all." I was referring to the off-wiki blog post/doxing that Thamazing mentioned above and questioning whether that might have been part of the reason a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep. The earlier blog post and related on-wiki fallout was what I was referring to as the elephant in the room. I think that's about as plain as I can be without having this post redacted. ~Awilley (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep" an accurate summary of the facts? I showed up on Thmazings talk page in December 2023‎. The off-wiki blog post was made on January 18th 2024. Fram didn't show up until 6 March 2024‎, JoelleJay on the 7th, and AirshipJungleman29 on the 8th. To me that looks like JoelleJay and AirshipJungleman29 followed Fram to the page but it doesn't look like Fram was following the "bad site" closely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw Fram's edits to the page come up on my watchlist and was curious. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how AJ29 arrived too. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No actually, I was following you; I believe you had said something on Jimmy Wales' talk page (EDIT: yes, it was this thread which I participated in) and I absent-mindedly had a look at your recent contributions. Couple of days later I was having a look at WPO (I believe for the Nihonjoe saga), saw that thread, and thought "huh". Used what I could of that thread when opening the VPM subsection after being irritated by Thmazing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on these facts I would ask that you strike "HEB" from "questioning how Fram, HEB, and company spontaneously ended up on his talk page." if you don't choose to strike the whole thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you joined the others in posting on March 7, I'll strike "HEB" as you requested because, as you pointed out, you had posted on Thmazing's talk page in December 2023. ~Awilley (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And what about those who posted on the 9th? Are they part of this clique you're alleging the existence of or is the 8th some sort of magic cutoff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to defend the blog in any way, but doesn't that editor make their real life identity abundantly clear, hence the conflict of interest? XeCyranium (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Thmazing made like zero effort to hide his identity, which made the COI obvious. And to be fair, I have seen some evidence that Thmazing was trying to declare COI even before he was confronted. See for instance this October 2023 edit with the edit summary, "conflict alert: just cited myself". (Still not great to cite yourself though, even if the information was mundane.) ~Awilley (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Awilley, you claim that insinuations that I appeared at Thmazing's talk page due to some off-wiki canvassing is "It seems that was a valid question after all." I guess you have some evidence for this? As far as I can reconstruct, I noticed Thmazing because of the AML and the AML Awards, which I was looking at because of the many links between them and Nihonjoe's COI articles; and because he also turned up at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 26, which I looked at when I delved a bit deeper in Rachel Helps' edits (again after I noticed the BYU, AML, ... edits and the collaborations with Nihonjoe on GA review, edit-a-thon, ... ). I then noticed the older discussion about his COI issues, so I started looking at his edits more closely then. But feel free to post any evidence you have of any off-wiki places I was contacted or where I contacted others or ... If you don't have any, perhaps strike the accusation and don't repeat such bogus claims in the future. Fram (talk) 11:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram: I'm not trying to claim or insinuate anything. I became interested in the possibility of off-wiki collaboration when I was singled out by the "joe job" sock, so I did some digging and then posted the above. I don't find fault in any of your actions that you described above, and I really wouldn't care even if you had learned about Nihonjoe and the other editors on the other site. How you find the information matters much less than what you do with it. You'll have to forgive me for not being immediately familiar with all the facts. When I first commented on the Village Pump thread this month I didn't realize there was an Arbcom case afoot and Nihonjoe wasn't even on my radar, so I've been kind of piecing things together since then. ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once you look at the timeline of things, you can see that this didn't start with WPO, WPO only confirmed what people had already been saying on-wiki for years. To recap:
    • the now-familiar 2020 COIN
    • 2022 ANI started by Rachel Helps against HEB, where she writes "I have invited Horse Eye's Back to bring their concerns to COIN. I would prefer that to the constant accusations that I should not be editing certain pages." This is ironic in hindsight, as these concerns had already been brought to COIN two years earlier. AFAICS, nobody in the 2022 ANI thread mentioned the 2020 COIN. The only person in the 2022 ANI discussion who was also in the 2020 COIN is... Rachel Helps. I find it not very honest of her to say "take it to COIN" without disclosing that this had already been done. BTW, who jumps in to defend Rachel in the 2022 ANI? Awilley.
    • January 2024 ANI against HEB (for things including but not limited to the BYU/AML COI), in which Rachel Helps writes "HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon..." (this is the one mentioned above where [Hydrangeans] pinged Awilley to the discussion) Dozens of editors participated here.
      BTW just to toot my own horn here, I said there and then, on Jan 8, that "It seems wildly obvious that 'something is afoot,' and I don't think it's limited to this thread..." That there was widespread undisclosed COI editing was obvious by Jan 8. Subsequent disclosers have since validated my suspicions.
    • The "Let's talk about LDS editors" WPO forum thread was started Jan 18. After all of the above.
    • The WPO blogs were posted in Feb and March (neither one about Rachel Helps, but related)
    The timeline refutes any suggestion that WPO is what brought attention to this matter. Rather, WPO laid bare the evidence that supported what was already being discussed on-wiki. We know from people's statements that editors submitted evidence to Arbcom privately in December and January. Wikipedia didn't follow WPO, WPO followed Wikipedia. People weren't canvassed from WPO to Wikipedia, it was the other way around. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty damn sure that the reason WPO wrote about it was because nothing was done on-wiki. Which happens pretty regularly: if Wikipedia doesn't take care of its own problems on-wiki, the rest of the world will notice and call Wikipedia out for it whenever the problems are serious enough for the rest of the world to care. Spreading misinformation in Mormonism, the Holocaust, Israel/Palestine, Iran, etc. are examples of things the real world will care about. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the extensive ongoing issues and the lack of recalcitrance maybe we need to start talking about sanctions for Awilley. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the timeline, Levivich. That is very helpful. I remember that 2022 ANI...I think that's why I kept getting pinged back to subsequent threads on the same issue. ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so when you're in a hole, stop digging. This isn't McCarthyism, which you literally linked to. starship.paint (RUN) 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus this is a mess,
    does anyone want me to contact an admin Maestrofin (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maestrofin: The admins are most likely fully aware. This forum is entitled "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think we should have an Request For Comment Maestrofin (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Several admins have participated in this thread, including Awilley above. An RfC might be needed subsequently, but not right now; you are welcome to comment on this discussion Maestrofin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect that @Ocaasi: was canvassed to this discussion per [47]. Despite being an admin Ocassi had not commented on this noticeboard since September 2015 and was not in general active on wikipedia when they came here to make a very strong comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Closing time?

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

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

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

    @jps My experience in many contentious (especially religious) topics around Wikipedia has been that there are often two major groups of editors in opposition with one another. One group usually has some affiliation with the topic that gives them three things: 1, motivation to edit, 2, above average knowledge about the subject matter, and 3, a non-neutral point of view. (1 & 2 are good things, 3 is a bad thing.) These users are usually opposed by another group of users who are 1, motivated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to counter the POV of the first group, and that, 2, have relatively little knowledge of the subject matter. It is good to have some friction between these groups of editors, since Wikipedia needs motivated editors, people with deep knowledge about the subjects, and a commitment to follow its PAGs. Sometimes you will find a smaller third group of editors between these two opposing groups. These editors may some affiliation with the subject matter with the corresponding POV problem, but they have decided that when they log into Wikipedia, they are going to put Wikipedia first. They have a deep knowledge of the subject, but they recognize their bias and they take steps to mitigate that. If improving Wikipedia is the goal, these editors are a precious resource. The main reason I'm defending Rachel Helps is because I see her as being part of this third group. Does that answer your question? ~Awilley (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You think being Mormon gives a person an above-average knowledge of Mormonism? I think it's the opposite. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strike your comments. That is very disrespectful. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed: this is a completely unacceptable PA by Levivich, and not even attached to an actual point they're trying to make. Remsense诉 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is Rachel not a member of group 1? She has motivation to edit, above average knowledge of the subject (such that one might have as a member of the church), and a non-neutral point of view. You are also a member of group 1, no? jps (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose if you're technical about it, a Venn diagram would show that group 3 is largely a subset of group 1. My own relationship with Mormonism is complicated and something I prefer not to discuss on-wiki, but I have tried my best try my best to be a good member of group 3. ~Awilley (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the controversy here is one over whether it is possible to be more or less in the service of NPOV. I would prefer that we simply admit that people with a close relationship with a subject will necessarily be biased. It is our job as editors to try as best as we can to put that bias aside and attempt to follow Wikipedia's consensus WP:PAGs to achieve WP:NPOV. To the extent that I think the BYU contingent has been unable to do that and to the extent it has been in the service of the particular bias which is more-or-less apparent at first glance from the consideration of their approaches in articles on the Book of Mormon is the extent to which I have concerns over WP:PAID, WP:COI, etc. in these areas. So while your complicated relationship with Mormonism is a concern, you (as far as I know) are not being paid to edit Wikipedia by an organization with an iron in that fire. Here is the bone of contention. This is why I am having a hard time seeing how this is amenable to compromise between "just stay away" and "there's nothing wrong with it". jps (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it the case that at this point, only the community can determine if a compromise is possible? I mean, the community has already reached a consensus on its preferred outcome. And admins are not likely to thwart the community's decision, imho. Also, since we are already here, wherever "here" is, we might as well move forward ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, Rachel can appeal in six months or whatever the time frame is. Time in between now and an appeal can be a benefit because it is a chance to show a proven track record. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    which is more-or-less apparent at first glance Except it isn't more or less apparent. The worst of those Book of Mormon topic articles were created decades ago, in the early 2000s, by completely different accounts with nothing to do with Rachel Helps (BYU) and were in far sorrier states before the BYU-paid editors actually added citations to sources other than the Book of Mormon. (To quote Ghosts of Europa, Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. [for clarity, Ammonihah was not expanded by a BYU-paid editor; that's an article I expanded])
    I'm aware of JPS having complaints. Yet some of these complaints have ranged from the genuinely inaccurate (I urge JPS to at some point accept the academic assessment of Joseph Smith as having been racist in a slightly different manner than has been insisted with repeated linking to a 30-year-old JWHA Journal article—and saying that isn't apologetics unless Max Perry Mueller's Race and the Making of the Mormon People (University of North Carolina Press, 2017) is Mormon apologetics, which would be a strange characterization for an academic book written by a non-Mormon about Mormon racism and white saviorism)—to the demandingly excessive, like at Talk:Ammonihah where JPS calls a non-Mormon literature professor a lunatic charlatan and repeatedly insists the article is incomprehensible because it doesn't provide an apologetics-style anthropology of background elements in the story like supposed Nephite ecclesioilogy.
    My bone of contention is that JPS's catastrophic description of the Mormon studies topic area that Rachel Helps (BYU) and the student employees have contributed to doesn't hold up in all cases and only holds up in a couple. My bone of contention is that speaking as a trans girl who was formerly a BYU student with a BYU student job (unrelated to the Wikimedian-in-residence business; I never met Rachel Helps (BYU) at BYU and instead met her and primarily got to know her via Wikipedia), this BYU contingent as JPS calls them never made me feel ashamed or like I was less than them, whereas the users most strongly insisting that Rachel Helps (BYU)'s contributions are catastrophically damaging have proceeded with a tear-down tone that's left me feeling paralyzed about editing completely unrelated things on Wikipedia. I cannot stress this enough when it's so bizarre. I came out as trans at BYU, and the behavior that has been on display here at Wikipedia in the midst of this whole "thing" has hurt more and inflicted more shame than I experienced back then. There's been attempts at outing and stalking, there's been bizarre additions to articles like throwing judge of ??? (actually with the question marks) in body text because apparently that was the best way to insist that article text I wrote wasn't clear enough about the intricate geopolitics of a Nephite society that NPOV means we're not supposed to be treating as nearly so real (JPS's train of thought on Book of Mormon topics more than once has resembled FARMS-style apologists much more than the 21st-century academic-critical field), I've been told my best effort to summarize available scholarship has constituted stupid games. At BYU, I didn't develop a fear I was being stalked. I didn't get talked about over the pulpit or in publicly-viewable forums. No BYU personnel ever followed me to an unrelated article to loom over my shoulder.
    I don't know what's up about Nihonjoe and ArbCom, and I don't know why the heck Thmazing has been so devil may care in tone and has been making articles cited so predominantly to blog posts. Let the sanctions on them fall as they must. But to apply the same broad brush more widely and without nuance or differentiation strikes me as reminiscent of the kind of thinking at which the Mormon Smokescreen Cabal joke was supposed to poke fun. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස:, you've certainly been around long enough to know that ??? is poor wikivoice. A couple questions: Can you point to consensus regarding the WSJ not covering climate change accurately? WP:WSJ makes no mention of it. Are you following [Hydrangeans] around and/or intentionally scanning their contributions for errors? I'm struggling to find an explanation for these edits besides you intentionally being harsh on [Hydrangeans]'s edits, although please provide one if there is. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it's well known that the WSJ is a problem when it comes to climate change denial: [48].
    I am not "following" [Hydrangeans] around. I did look at some of the articles she had last contributed to and did see this terrible "hockey stick controversy" WSJ article added in Ross McKitrick. This was not, to my knowledge, anything she added to the article. I do not find anything problematic about her work on that article.
    I think the lack of WP:AGF extended towards me from [Hydrangeans] is sad, but as you can see from our interactions on her talkpage, not surprising. I am leveling harsh critique on certain Wikipedia contributions she has made, but they aren't unforgivable sins by any means. Yes, I found the article on Ammonihah and most of the rest of the Book of Mormon pages to be pretty bad and needing a lot of cleanup. I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places. I think there is a lot more work to be done up to and including three question marks!
    jps (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are we discussing about again is it Rachel helps or her students Or all,
    Because this is a big mess Maestrofin (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't take issue with deleting that Wall Street Journal reference on the Ross McKitrick article. I'm sorry that I wasn't paying enough attention to delete it myself; my attention was taken up by belatedly implementing the results of a talk page discussion. What I take issue with are the looming and a tone that others others have talked to JPS about (the two linked diffs are written by someone who agrees with JPS on content, about a different article JPS was participating in). I take issue with someone who says he will not apologize for being a disruptive force instead of wanting to be a constructive force. I can accept we disagree about the utility of literary criticism as a secondary source about texts (although I find the lunatic charlatan invocation a perplexing characterization, especially as apparently applied to even completely secular scholarship), and I can accept we disagree about what makes good content in an Ammonihah article or what have you. I can accept being wrong about that, and I can accept those articles significantly changing. What I don't think I'm obliged to accept is an apparent priding of oneself on contributing disruptively rather than constructively, or behavior like going LOL (actual quotation, multiple times) at other editors' good faith interactions (at Talk:Ammonihah, at Talk:Massacre of the Innocents). The presumption of good faith is a core value on Wikipedia of course—and so is the recognition that being right isn't enough. A templated dove doesn't oblige me to roll over and just take the LOLs and Whachagonnados and pretend like that's restrained, polite talking. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please feel free to disagree strenuously with me, as you have been. You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things, but I'm happy to discuss these matters on my talkpage. jps (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize the WSJ's issue with climate change (though I am aware of WP:RSOPINION). Either way, thanks for answering my question about climate change.
    On second thought, I think the ???, while not perfect, isn't worth relitigating this whole debate. I welcome a close and don't need any further answers to my questions. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats an opinion piece... And the Editorial board at The Wall Street Journal is definitely known for bad takes on climate change. Note that [Hydrangeans] has a history of following around other editors (including to completely unrelated topics) and "looming" over their shoulder so their complaints are a bit much all things considered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My own feeling, like I said above, is that this sort of paid editing (paid editing that doesn't follow WP:PAID and WP:COI, and a WIR program that doesn't follow the guidelines for those organization) is a hard red line. I'm not remotely convinced that the people in question knew more about the topic area or were in whatever respect more policy-compliant compared to the average editor, but either way it doesn't matter, for the reasons I outlined above - this is an actually serious problem which, as a precedent, would have implications far beyond this specific dispute. I'm also deeply unimpressed by an argument that we should make a special exception for someone just because some people feel they are irreplaceable - that is not how Wikipedia works or has ever worked. Based on that I'm unwilling to accept anything but broad topic-bans, and I expect this to go to ArbCom if necessary in order to get them - this has been discussed repeatedly, devouring massive amounts of editor time and energy, for four years. If it isn't ended in an extremely conclusive manner here, then the community has failed to resolve it and a broader ArbCom case is the only way to go. --Aquillion (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your third group is just the first group from its own POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would probably help if a request for closing was not immediately followed by relitigation of the above debate and related events from the parties who are most unlikely to change their minds. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    That's great to hear, and will probably inform any closer's decision. But listen: since you're the one who's getting paid to edit Wikipedia, you should be the one proposing specific fixes and to-do items for yourself based on the extensive feedback you've already received over the past several years (from many unpaid, volunteer editors who could have been doing other things instead, I should add). In specific content terms, what are some of the specific edits you're planning to "fix"? What articles, what sections, what changes to your prior edits, specifically? Even just a few will help convey a sense of what you think is wrong with your prior edits, and how you will correct them. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of complaints about me personally, my job, and my edits here. One of the ones that I think is the most legitimate is the argument that we are using too much "in-universe" explanation for the books of the Book of Mormon. I think we could add more context to clarify on individual pages what a book of the Book of Mormon is. I'm watching the edits on BoM pages. It's difficult for me to look past jps's inflammatory language asking for clarification on issues where I or other people used ambiguous language to summarize theology that was ambiguous in the text that we summarized (but at least he is articulating his complaints to the extent of making edits). My plan is to watch how other editors resolve these edits to try to figure out what is the most objectionable part about our edits. Was it how we wrote the narrative sections? Is there a better way to introduce analysis of the Book of Mormon by members who are also Biblical or literary scholars, if that is appropriate to include on Wikipedia? Those are the kinds of questions I am looking for answers to. My current plan is to give myself and my students a break from editing Book of Mormon pages for the rest of the semester (here that's until the end of April), which I hope will give time for some consensus to develop and for one or two pages to get to a standard that is acceptable to the community, which I could then imitate. If my team returned to editing Book of Mormon pages, it would be either me, or me and one other student, to make the pace of editing slower to wait for review from other editors. And it would be great if I could find an on-wiki mentor who is not associated with BYU or the LDS Church to go to with my editing questions. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect this is one of those ANI discussions where each participant leaves with a lower opinion of every other participant, but for different reasons. That said, probably the best content-related argument against the topic ban (e.g. from Vanamonde) is that you are the editor who is most capable of fixing some of the content problems that have been identified in the topic affected by the ban. If that were true, then topic banning you would impede the process of fixing the content, making things worse overall. But from what you've said here for the first time (I think), it seems like your actual plan is to wait for other editors to (figure out how to) fix content in that topic area anyway. Not you, not now. Given this new information you've provided, that "best content-related argument against", aka "per Vanamonde", becomes much less persuasive, I think. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rachel Helps (BYU): I have to agree with Indignant Flamingo above. I opposed a TBAN because I believe you're among the few editors with the time and the inclination and the ability to help clean up some of the problems with articles related to Mormonism that you and your students have worked on, which in my view largely have to do with using sources too close to their subject and language that doesn't distinguish articles of faith from accepted fact. I opposed a TBAN despite the serious concerns many colleagues raised above, because I felt you would be willing to help rectify these issues. If you would rather take a break from the topic, though, I struggle to see why I, and others, should advocate for your continued ability to edit about it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: and @Indignant Flamingo:: Thank you for these question. I have been thinking a lot about what I have done wrong. It has been difficult for me to sift through feedback on my editing (and I have felt paralyzed by my own anxiety), but this conversation has helped me to narrow down what is important, and empowered me to have an opinion on how I think we could repair some of our work. With the Book of Mormon pages specifically, I think I got into too much of a binary mode about whether or not a source was "reliable." But for scholarship in Book of Mormon studies, especially from the 1990s or 2000s, sometimes it is more complicated than "this is a reliable source." Something I understood implicitly was that I shouldn't use Wikipedia's voice to summarize opinions about the Book of Mormon as a historical or archeological source--at the very least these should be consolidated into a section on apologetics, or, like you and others have suggested, excluded entirely. However, my students did not understand this implicitly like I did. They were doing what I told them--to summarize what a given source said about a topic and cite it in-line--when I should have instructed them to look more carefully at the implicit bias in scholarship, especially sources like Brant Gardner, which have some valuable analysis, but also work off of the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text. If we were to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, cleanup of archeological/historical arguments on pages we have edited would be my first priority. However, my students have experienced emotional damage from my incompetence. I would let them choose whether or not to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, with an option to continue their projects that are less connected with Mormons and the LDS Church. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indignant Flamingo asked for an example. Laban (Book of Mormon) contains a paragraph about the brass plates under "Interpretations". It is tricky because it mixes apologetic arguments with literary ones. I would remove this analysis, or introduce it differently: "Brant Gardner, writing under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text, has argued that the brass plates were a symbol of political authority and recordkeeping in the society of Book of Mormon people (Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites)." I would remove the Stephen Ricks info. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rachel, I'm so sorry this is making you feel so much anxiety. FWIW, I do not believe you have edited in bad faith, and I doubt I'm alone. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not very happy about this either and in my opinion this should be spun off from the AML issues with Nihonjoe and Thmazing unless and until the inquisitorially minded editors find clearer linkages.
    I’m not sure how this would best be handled, but I would be very wary of any permanent remedies being applied at this point and will slightly adjust my vote accordingly.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A clearer link than the three of them all being current/former board members of AML? What clearer link can there be than all three of their names appearing on the AML about us page? Levivich (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, why don’t you just ask her? She’s been very cooperative so far. And anyway, while the same person wearing two hats is obviously going to rub off both ways, sanctioning Rachel Helps (BYU) would include the whole BYU outfit, and I don’t believe the standard of evidence has yet been met to say that the BYU outfit has demonstrably colluded with Nihonjoe or Thmazing. If such a thing happened, it’ll probably come out over at ArbCom.
    The reason I’m now flip-flopping uncertainly is that I perceive jps as dragging their apparently long history of content disputes into this venue, and, along with others, making statements that could be reasonably interpreted as implying support of non-neutral handling of religion more generally, while HEB is making unsubstantiated allegations that faintly ooze a touch of Chekism.
    Meanwhile, Fram and some others have notably tapered off, most likely because they intuit that some more wheels are turning at ArbCom and/or elsewhere and further participation in the mud bath party here is worse than useless for anyone who wants to doggedly pursue the actual application of remedies.
    ANI is probably no longer an appropriate venue and pretty soon I think I’m gonna go make a formal closure request. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are already requests at WP:ANRFC and WP:AN. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't I just ask her what? I don't have any questions. There is, in fact, evidence that Rachel Helps (BYU) "demonstrably colluded" with Nihonjoe and Thmazing, and others. Some of the evidence has been redacted so I can't discuss it, but there's plenty of public evidence still on this page, VPM and the arbcom evidence page -- the evidence my support votes are based on. Look, bottom line: COI concerns have been raised for years about Rachel Helps (BYU). The people who pushed back the hardest against those COI concerns fall into three groups: BYU people, AML people, WiR people. I don't know if you're aware but arbcom already considered expanding the scope of its Nihonjoe case to include Rachel Helps/BYU/AML and voted against doing so. I think ANI is still the appropriate venue for this. This will be closed eventually, it might take some time as it's a long thread, and probably the best thing we can all do, including myself, is to stop making it longer, unless we're bringing evidence of something new. Otherwise, all the evidence and the votes seem to be in. Levivich (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rachel Helps (BYU); thank you, that is somewhat reassuring. I think you should seriously consider, though, keeping your students off of topics closely intertwined with Mormonism for the foreseeable future, assuming the lot of them do not emerge from this situation with TBANs. It's quite evident from this discussion that there have been problems with the mormonism-related content they have produced. I could speculate as to why, but I won't; I'll just say that dispassionately describing faith and belief in any system is difficult, and is not the sort of task an undergraduate may be up to. I say this to save you and your students further distress, as well as to protect our content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not looked at your Mormon studies/history related edits in any more detail than what was required for the post at VPM and at the start of this section. I have no doubt that many, perhaps even the majority, of you and your students edits on those topics were constructive. But that is to not see the wood for the trees.
    For me, COI editing is comparable to (in some ways) to sockpuppet editing—let me explain. It is a question of trust. Yes, a sockpuppet can contribute productively, in improving articles, taking part in processes, getting Wikipedia to function. But it is Wikipedia policy to block all sockpuppets on sight and to put all their edits up for immediate reversion. Why? Because once you mislead others to that extent, the trust is gone. And that the trust, or lack of, is fundamental, because good conduct is of equal importance to good content (and I say this as someone who focuses on the latter and occasionally fails at the former).
    It is the same for COI editing. After I have seen your lack of disclosures with, e.g. the account named BoyNamedTzu (I do not know what is public and what is not, but I know that you and I and Primefac and BoyNamedTzu and most of the people in this thread and everyone on The Site That Must Not Be Named know) how can there be trust? Especially for a person who has held a position which by rights should indicate you are above suspicion. To find that you were actively pushing back against the basic COI suggestions as far back as 2018, and you might as well throw that trust into a shoddily-built submersible and send it down to the wreck of the Titanic.
    The closer may decide that there are significant issues with your Book of Mormon editing, and that's more important. If that's the close, fair enough, I don't really mind—I know you have asked above and on WPO how to improve that aspect. But I want to be clear: I opened this section because I did not think you treated your fellow editors with adequate respect and consideration, not because I felt you were harming articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29: earlier than that, 2016 at least [49]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have restored this thread from the archive, as many people have voted in it and so it should be properly closed. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Substituted template to prevent another auto-archiving for 30 days. NicolausPrime (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Comments made by Thomas B indicate an intention to continue participation and failure to understand why own behavior is disruptive. Here's two examples: [50] "I won't be participating too actively in any further discussion." and [51] "I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually perfectly fine." (boldings mine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolausPrime (talk • contribs) 20:04 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

    Statement by Thomas B

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

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

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

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

    Finally, I want to say that part of the problem is that I've been away from protracted controversies here for a long time, and there appears to have been a change in the way content disputes are resolved now. In particular, I was suprised to be blocked not by policy but by consensus.[52] Most of the people who contributed to that consensus were also involved in the content dispute. It does really seem like a group of editors showed up on an article to which I have made substantial contributions[53] over many years[54], took it over and forced me out, because there was one thing they wanted to make sure the article said. I don't remember it working that way in the past.

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

    Proposal: topic ban

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

    • Support as proposer. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my above comment. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as my interpretation of the original block was that there was consensus for a topicpage ban before, and there's no indication that anything's changed. Extending that to a topic ban across a narrow set of topics isn't an unreasonable next step ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: the interaction here is illustrative of the fact that Thomas B simply does not exhibit the capacity to comprehend that anyone could hold views different from his own on this matter; this is incompatible with constructive discussion and consensus-forming. Moreover, it is clear that Thomas B lacks the self-control necessary to stop bludgeoning discussions on this issue. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think Thomas B's concerns regarding the Tim Hunt page are legitimate. That doesn't mean they are the consensus view but I can see how they can make their case in good faith. I would suggest they back away and let others reply and if others don't then they need to accept that they don't have consensus. I think this sanction is counter productive as it tells someone who is concerned about a BLP issue that they should just shut up and not have brought things up. I get that sometimes editors feel like someone is objecting too much. However, editors are also free to not reply. No one is going to think a 3:1 (or what ever it actually is) consensus against Thomas B's proposed changes will magically be closed as "consensus for" if Thomas B is allowed to have the last word. So long as the discussion doesn't leave BLPN (a legitimate place for the concern) and the discussion is civil I don't see why this needs admin action. Springee (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We had extensive discussions on WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN, Talk:Tim Hunt, WP:ANI, the RfC, and now yet another one on WP:BLPN. The previous BLPN thread was started by Thomas B after NPOVN reached a consesus against Thomas B's position. The current BLPN thread was created by Thomas B after the RfC concluded also against this user's position. Which is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. In every case the discussion concerned the same thing: a single subsubsection in Tim Hunt's biography, and each time consensus emerged against Thomas B. Which is WP:STICK. In every discussion Thomas B's made an excessively large amount of posts as compared to others, often reiterating the same arguments. Which is WP:BLUDGEONING.
      This has been going on for over a month and has been draining a considerable amount of attention from me and other editors. Isn't this disruptive and draining our community resources? Are you sure that this doesn't need admin action, and this typical topic-ban sanction would be as far as counter productive? NicolausPrime (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of Bludgeoning [55] Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked. Its almost a single-minded obsession. As regards WP:FORUMSHOPPING, this is repeatedly raising the same topic at multiple forums. [56] Reviewing Thomas B's contribution history demonstrates that he raised the issue at WP:BLPN once before the ANI thread started that led to his block and that was the sole time he had raised it in any forum outside of trying to discuss the topic on the article talk page. He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false. Rather we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly to have editors blocked but offering no real evidence and what little evidence is offered, when you look closer doesn't support the allegation of misconduct. WCMemail 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked."
    This is false, as directly contradicted by the following edits, unrelated to Thomas B, that I made between March 23 and today: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61].
    "He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false."
    The very discussion that you link, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim_Hunt, immediately reaches the conclusion that the filing constituted forum-shopping. We can disagree, maybe, whether the second BLPN thread created one month later constituted forum-shopping or was just beating a dead horse, but it evidently was at least one of that as it had been shortly preceded by extensive discussions that I noted above. And no, the issue is not distinct, it's a yet another, ad nauseam reiteration the same arguments about the article being unfair to Tim Hunt, to address which the RfC was created and have thus resolved.
    "we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly"
    This is the third or fourth time I see you making this accusation. I can't say for others, but I'm definitely not a member of any tag team. Except for commenting once in an earlier RfC started by LokiTheLiar, I don't think I've ever interacted with any of the editors involved in the Tim Hunt discussion and its offshoots before the NPOVN thread, where my involvement began. I started the original page-ban vote because I wanted the disruption to end, and I've started this thread because I felt responsible for failing to prevent further disruption due to my choice of a page ban instead of a topic ban. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to post diffs demonstrating that Thomas B raised the issue at multiple forums. You can't because he didn't. He raised it once at WP:BLPN, which was the appropriate forum. What would you call it when the same group of editors are the same ones on multiple threads all calling for someone's head? The same group of editors complaining loudly that he was forum shopping for raising it in one forum. WCMemail 20:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    • Support This is clearly what the original consensus intended and Thomas B's behavior since then is a clear example of WP:GAMING. Loki (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Seems the only way to prevent this (part of the) disruption continuing. Bon courage (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Thomas B has raised legitimate concerns about WP:BLP policy, in the close of the RFC it was noted his concerns were legitimate and could not be ignored. Per Springee he is entitled to raise those concerns at WP:BLPN. I see someone has suggested he is bludgeoning the discussion and I acknowledge he has made a number of contributions. However, most are replies in a discussion with Newimpartial e.g. [62]. There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it. It is Kafkaesque to suggest an editor is sanctioned as the result of an WP:ANI thread raised against another editor who has an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor's excessive posts. @EducatedRedneck: I presume your support vote reflects your satisfaction that WP:FORUMSHOPPING is an issue, may I draw your attention that the NicolausPrime considers that I have raised an issue in a forum once as forumshopping. WCMemail 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often - in the ANI section above, the only evidence presented in support of this assertion [63] [64] includes (succinct) responses to direct questions as though they could be violations, although such are explicitly excluded by the terms of my restrictions (as was noted by SilverSeren above).
      No other editor in "my" section, aside from the OP, has suggested any possible violation of my anti-bludgeon restriction, and many editors have participated above. I would therefore appreciate if you would strike your assertion here that I am breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it - there is no suggestion that I have broken my anti-bludgeon restriction nor is there a suggestion that I be sanctioned, so I'd rather not see that inaccurate statement left in this other section (where I randomly happened to see it).
      You also imply (when you refer to an WP:ANI thread raised by an editor already under an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor (1) that I raised a thread at ANI (since no other editor here is under a restriction for number of posts per topic) and (2) that Thomas B. is facing sanctions here for responding to my comments. So far as I can tell, neither of these assertions is accurate, since I didn't bring anything to ANI and sanctions proposed here are about forum shopping and have nothing to do with any interaction between Thomas B. and myself. Perhaps you were confusing me with NicolausPrime, an editor I had never been aware of until the last day or so on this page.
      Anyway, I'd appreciate you striking the second reference to my editing as well; I'd rather not see spurious statements be made about my conduct even incidentally (and possibly based on mistaken identity). Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mistake your identity, I mistakenly pasted the wrong name but that's fixed now. I do believe you have broken your anti-bludgeon restriction but you've obviously missed that I opposed any sanction. I am not the only editor to think that way, so I will respectfully decline that request. I had also noticed it myself but chose not to report it - I usually try to avoid the drama boards until after I try and discuss with editors first. I will revise my wording to make my meaning clearer; Nicholas started this thread as a result of the thread raised about you and that is what I meant. I was also responding to the bludgeoning accusation against Thomas, which is largely responding to posts you made requesting a reply from him. Which is not to accuse anyone of misconduct and I have not sought any action against anyone including you. I trust that clarifies the matter? WCMemail 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your !vote above doesn't refer in any way to my anti-bludgeon restriction, nor do those of any other editors apart from the OP and Silver seren, who corrected the OP's misinterpretation of the restriction (Silver seren quoted the actual text of the restriction, above).
    If you still do believe [I] have broken [my] anti-bludgeon restriction, I'd appreciate you documenting that in the relevant section above, preferably with the evidence you consider relevant, so the question can be addressed by other editors - at the moment, that view seems to have been rejected by all editors contributing to the discussion besides the OP. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already declined to report your violation of your anti-bludgeon restriction, I do so again. If I had felt it needed action I would have already discussed it with you. Now having had to give the same reply effectively twice, may I draw attention to this. Please take the hint. WCMemail 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not going to report it, then stop bringing it up. This is staring to look like WP:HOUNDing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't. WCMemail 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you think you are bringing it up or not, your repeated insistence on your unique view that I transgressed my anti-bludgeon restriction - which you do in an irrelevant section, and without any kind of evidence - is pretty clearly the kind of WP:ASPERSION that CIVIL tells editors not to make. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally fucking did, right there, which is why I responded. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WCM, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I don't think you're suggesting that someone making a spurious accusation against you therefore determines the legitimacy (one way or the other) of an accusation against Thomas B. Are you saying NicolausPrime fabricated the claims of the five involved fora (talk page consensus, NPOVN, BLPN, RfC, 2nd BLPN)? EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas B's contribution history is quite clear, you're welcome to check it for yourself. Before he was brought to ANI, he raised it at WP:BLPN and that was the appropriate forum. He hadn't forum shopped. WCMemail 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think I see the disagreement. It's true that Thomas B did not open the first BLPN topic on Tim Hunt, though he was the first respondent and contributed extensively. Also in his defense, there wasn't a crystal-clear consensus from that one, so him subsequently starting a discussion on the article talk was likewise appropriate. Subsequently raising it at BLPN could also be interpreted as part of WP:DR, seeking outside opinions.
    So, on the whole, I agree forum shopping is not a valid reason for sanctions. However, I'd assert that disruptive editing, evidencing WP:IDHT in this very thread, is a valid reason. Whether his behavior counts as disruptive is a judgement call. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're linking to the NPOVN discussion, which was started by User:LokiTheLiar during the initial edit war with Thomas B (at that moment it was a 1 vs. many, where the 1 was Thomas B). Both BLPN threads ([65] and [66]) were later started by Thomas B. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You claimed he forum shopped to WP:NPOVN, which you now acknowledge was done by another editor. Prior to the page ban, he'd only raised it in one forum. As a BLP, WP:BLPN was the correct forum and where it should have been raised in the first place. 22:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose; Springee put it perfectly. I appreciate the ban is supposed to reflect bludgeoning and failing to drop the stick, but it also looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the "wrong" opinion, an attempt by one side to undermine the other. The harm done by such a ban - the chilling effect on future debate - greatly exceeds the mild inconvenience of an editor writing a bit too much about their viewpoint, in too many fora. Elemimele (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Per Springee, Thomas B should back away, but I would suggest the same for the editors interacting with Thomas B. Nemov (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Run-of-the-mill response to an example of the kind of forum-shopping and stick-grabbing that the project has seen time and time again as the years have rolled by. Any "chilling effect" on editors expressing opinions vaguely aligned with Thomas B's is purely speculative. If we stopped doing topic bans because of such speculation, we'd have to find a whole new way of dealing with a very real problem. XOR'easter (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Though i agree with Springee and others about the concerns, i believe that Thomas B has shown/is showing a startling lack of ability to read the room and work within a community. If the several editors above who also agree with his point (though not his methods) are representative of a portion of the community then that point will be discussed and taken into consideration without Thomas B's disruptive behaviour. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Whilst I understand what the opposers are saying, this isn't a proposed ban for having the "wrong" opinion, it's a ban for being utterly and completely unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK even after a previous block. It would have been simple to walk away and edit one of the other 7 million Wikipedia articles, but ... no. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support formal topic ban. This user apparently cannot comprehend the idea that he should stop digging after the initial page block, and is carrying on the arguments in other locations. A topic ban is the only way we can move forward without Thomas dragging this out across the wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is the problem my inability to drop the stick or a number of editors inability to ignore a quite tame posting to BLPN? Other than this very strange ANI, what disruption has my post caused? What effect has my post had on the editing of the Tim Hunt article? Thomas B (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      a quite tame posting You have made approximately 20 comments in the discussion at BLPN; all other editors combined have made about 40. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You understand that I have mainly answered their questions, right? I should have "dropped the stick" and ignored their direct questions? Thomas B (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're still digging... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You understand that your response is evasive, that your original comment is dishonest, and that you are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to exhibit the self-control necessary to participate in an acceptable way, right? --JBL (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the accusation of dishonesty is unfair and uncivil, so I'm not responding to this comment. Thomas B (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This is a transparent refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK combined with WP:IDHT. I am sure that the concerns are genuine, but they have already been discussed and addressed. At this point Thomas needs to leave this to other editors and WP:AGF (saying things like they want to paint Hunt as a sexist when someone disagrees about anything is not what I would consider good-faith). In terms of dropping the stick, we can all see the responses at BLPN and they have not been mainly answer[ing] their questions. See for example: [67] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [68] (continuing to double down) and [69] (no one asked any question here either) and [70] (example of WP:IDHT, editors have repeatedly explained that no one is suggesting the article call him sexist, but Thomas is still arguing as if they are) and [71] (accusing other editors of bad faith unprompted). This whole situation is getting ridiculous. The RFC is closed. The article is being edited productively. Let's all just move on. (also this is my first comment at ANI so please let me know if I messed up formatting somewhere or need to change anything) CambrianCrab (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – no harm is being caused to the encyclopedia by raising legitimate and genuine BLP concerns. If you don't want to interact with him, then don't. I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "I don't think he should be blocked because I agree with him, and his behavioral issues are actually the fault of other people" ok then. --JBL (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Less sarcastically: Wikipedia operates on a consensus-based discussion model. Consensus models only work if (1) people are generally willing to accept when consensus is against them, and (2) people who refuse to acknowledge this can be prevented from disrupting discussions. The problem with Thomas B is not his views, it's that he's failing (1) and consequently forcing others to rely on (2).
      Here is a very simple question you could ask yourself: suppose that there were a 60-comment discussion involving 10 or 12 participants; how many comments would you expect each person to be making under normal circumstances, if no one is bludgeoning or arguing just for the sake of arguing or exhibiting WP:IDHT? Personally, I think any time you see someone making 12 or 15 comments in those circumstances, it's a very bad sign. Thomas B has made 20. --JBL (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would expect the person who started the discussion to make significantly more comments than anyone else in the discussion. It would not surprise me if they replied at least once to each of the others, sometimes merely to grant a point, clarify a statement, or answer a question. So, in a discussion with 10-12 participants, that 12-15 number seems conservative to me. Your reasoning, however, certainly explains the hostility against me if it has become the general view at WP. Like I say in my statement, things do seem to have changed since I was last involved in a big controversy. I mean, people have taken even my participation in this ANI proposing to ban me as a sign that I can't drop the stick (or shovel, per Hand). It's just peculiar, frankly. Thomas B (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if it has become the general view at WP
      This has been the general view for a long, long time, hence WP:BLUDGEON, which has existed since 2008. Responding to every single comment is the very heart of BLUDGEON. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose By the time the post was made to BLPN Hemiauchenia had already been working on the issue of implementing the RfC result. Firefangledfeathers trimmed the controversy section, tho i'm not sure if this was in response to the posting. S Marshall was providing some valuable comments. Morbidthoughts and Hemiauchenia started a good discussion which probably could have been very useful. Could have been better if more editors would have kept their eyes on the ball, but not the worst WP noticeboard discussion ever. fiveby(zero) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's become clear that Thomas B really can't drop this issue. Even if the BLPN thread has resulted in some constructive changes, his responses in the BLPN discussion make it obvious that he just cannot accept that the majority of people don't agree with him on what the section should look like, and that he's just going to keep causing disruption regarding this issue unless he is topic banned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's entirely correct that in my opinion the majority is wrong and that I think the article is currently misleading. I've added an update to this effect at the BLPN post.[72] But expressing this opinion is not in itself a disruption. I've been puzzled at the amount of annoyance (and administration) I've caused simply by posting things that could easily just be ignored, especially since I'm working within the contraints of a block that I have not appealed. Thomas B (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thomas B, you may wish to reread WP:IDHT. I feel encompasses why this amount of annoyance is being had from your conduct. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Consensus at this point on the article is clear (and has been for a long time); Thomas B's continued refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK, his WP:IDHT response to months of discussion and attempts to WP:FORUMSHOP the dispute are long past the point of being disruptive. Simply believing that the majority is wrong doesn't allow someone to endlessly raise the same issue in every possible venue available to them forever - we don't write articles or reach consensus via filibuster. The fact that his responses, above, show that he still doesn't get it even after an article-level block and after numerous people here have explained to him shows that nothing but a topic ban is going to work here. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support We are passed the point where consensus is clear around the Tim Hunt issue, the continued bludgeoning and forumshopping is disruptive. Enough is enough. T-ban. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request closure: this proposal has gotten a significant number of !votes, and no new !votes seem forthcoming. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vexatious pursuit of a topic ban

    This was archived without action but a group of editors decided to restore it even though there are no urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This is by the way the second time they've done that but this time adding a template to prevent archiving for 30 days. That is pretty clear evidence of the sort of concern that @Elemimele: expressed that this looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the "wrong" opinion and very much evidence they are unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK (ironically). Especially as even his detractors note the BLP thread resulted in some constructive changes. Any closer needs to be aware of the vexatious way a topic ban has been pursued. WCMemail 12:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PS to be clear, by vexatious I am not referring to everyone who commented but only those who aren't dropping the stick. WCMemail 14:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (uninvolved non-admin comment) It's been unarchived because there is a clear consensus for a topic ban, and has been for a while now. The only vexatious behaviour I see is on your part. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another uninvolved non-admin comment I was actually reading the thread linked by Wee Curry Monster because I was at that user talk page for another reason and, rather than being a meeting of a shadowy cabal it was a user seeking guidance about whether un-archiving would be too much of a violation of AN/I norms and showing due caution before seeking closure of an AN/I thread involving behaviour they were concerned of. Reviewing the thread above I would concur with Lavalizard101 that there is a clear consensus for a topic ban. Suggest an admin just close this out properly before it becomes another waste of time. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia

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

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


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

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

    Comment

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

    ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents You have moaned about this in two or three places now, but oddly you have not noted that you started one of the threads, nor have you apologized to me for doing so; odd, that. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you intend to do anything about these accusations that ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents, or are you going to keep posting this in some vague WP:FORUM manner? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from posting evidence of this happening at WP:ANI with supporting diffs? For example, [73],[74]. I've taken the page off my watch list, took a break, the thread dropped off the page with no action and its being resurrected seeking sanctions when there are no urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I've already demonstrated the accusation of misconduct are unfounded. Fling enough mud, often enough, eventually it sticks. WCMemail 18:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, file a formal request for sanctions, which you repeatedly avoid doing. You're casting aspersions and hounding by not actually requesting action, but still making accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that it's actually a bad idea for WCM to file such a request as it would be baseless and retaliatory. It would only expend even more of what is remaining of WCM's rope. I'm not the best in Wikipedia's policy, but I can imagine this backfiring even to a WP:CBAN, which we should try to avoid. So WCM just needs to stop casting aspersions, stop bringing all this in user talk pages, and move on. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an "us vs them" situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.
    I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Graywalls reported by User:72.83.72.31

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

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

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

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

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [76]

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

    • Long story short IMO definitely an "axe to grind" situation. Painful for several people and many articles. I wish this situation could get made better or fixed somehow. Maybe just a warning or something. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sending articles to AfD, redirecting articles or removing content thought by the editor to be bad are all normal editing activities. Certainly no-one is required to get permission from other editors before doing any of this.
      Also in regard to Boy Scouts of America removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page is simply untrue, as reading the talk page shows. Content was removed, there were a couple of back and forth edits with edit summaries which led to a talk page discussion, that talk page discussion showed consensus to keep the content and Greywalls hasn't tried to remove it since.
      And is this the right diff?[77] I don't see how it is a personal attack.
      If there is a discussion of COI with non-public information I would suggest that's resolved first. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, this seems to be almost direct copy of an already resolved ANEW report added by Evrik. Second, I've looked over these and Graywalls is right in quite a number of cases, these are all significantly sourced to Boy Scouts of America sources with no real 3rd party sourcing for a lot of these. They should be trimmed/redirected/deleted. The BSA area is turning into a walled garden with number of those pinged defending those walls from all appearances. Don't shoot the messenger, weed your own garden before someone else does. spryde | talk 14:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I should note that it was resolved as not the right forum which means it could be re-opened elsewhere.
      I agree that some of the stuff that @Graywalls has raised do require fixing. However, it required a bit of work to get them to engage in the talk discussion on Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Undue_contents; Graywalls very early insisted on it being discussed on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America despite the guidelines stating that discussion take place on the article talk page first. This derailed serious discussion of the merits of some of their other edits.
      Graywales used the paid editor warning notification instead of the Conflict of Interest notification at User_talk:Btphelps#March_2024; this gave Btphelps the misunderstanding that the only type of Conflict of Interest is paid or the understanding that he was being accused of being a paid editor. My understanding is that he had a CoI for an organization article that he was a senior volunteer [i.e., unpaid] at at the time many of his edits took place; however, that connection was listed on his user page at that time. I note the standard COI warning template is less accusatory and explains that there are several types of potential conflicts of interest. This incident does make me appreciate why one of the core principles of Wikipedia needs to be WP:Civility. Erp (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It also highlights why templates are often less useful than editors wording there own comments. Simply mistakenly using the wrong template can lead to all kinds on acrimony. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "Almost direct copy" is not accurate, nor the insinuation that it places or impression that it leaves. The referred-to post was for edit warring and was closed and the reason given for the closure is because it was stale. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few notes:
    • BSA is so large and decentralized with maybe 100 million people having gone through it and with such a long history that saying that a source isn't third party is like saying that if an article is written about humans that anything written by a human isn't third party or is a COI.
    • It's common and needed, in policy and OK that coverage of boring enclyclopedic details about is often via primary sources. That is not a basis for removing material.
    • One of the listed articles is about a total different scouting organization
    • There a huge latitude with "not explicitly breaking the rules" that allows them to be used to pursue an "ax to grind". Stricter-then-the Wiki-norm on applying/interpreting them, patterns / degree of targeting etc, using provisions in unintended ways to exclude coverage etc. This is not a good thing.
    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BSA isn't some shared aspect of the human condition, it is an organization with a vested interest in promoting itself. Sources coming from BSA and its affiliates are not independent and often not secondary, end of discussion. Policy also requires articles not be based on primary sources. If these articles are built from such sources, there is every reason to have tags. JoelleJay (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Articles built from" is pretty vague and so can be interpreted many different ways. There is certainly nothing wrong with using primary sources in articles. Policy acknowledges that and provides the particulars on doing that. As long as those are followed, that is not a reason/basis for knocking out material that is sourced to them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JolleJay is only stating policy, WP:PRIMARY Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. (bolding in the original). Tagging such articles with {{Primary}} would be entirely correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the subject; you are changing the subject which was removing material based on it having a primary source. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply and JolleJay's specifically relate to the complaint at hand, and you have still not provided any diffs or rational for why those actions are against policy. Instead, as I see below, you have simply repeated you unsubstantiated aspersion that Graywalls has an 'axe to grind' for the 5th or 6th time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking of the subject, which of the various BSA-interested accounts set up this thread while logged out, and have they informed user Graywalls of its existence via notification at his talk page? Axad12 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure it was Evrik (or if it wasn't then they've copied without attribution) as it's an exact copy from the edit warring noticeboard (that they also removed it from.) And no Graywalls has not been informed of this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now informed Graywalls as to the existence of this thread, since no one else did. Canterbury Tail talk 15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject includes tagging articles as excessively reliant on primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was taking it as a response to my post which it was indented under rather than the OP. I'm more concerned about deletion of sourced, useful enclyclopedic information than tags and my post reflected that.North8000 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted your last bullet point as encompassing all the behaviors described by the OP, including tagging. JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else in this discussion mentioned "walled garden". When I visit an article, then I stumble related "walled garden" articles full of personal website, blog based contents, I'm not ashamed to say I remove that sort of stuff. That's not axe grinding. That's cleaning up issues found across interlinked articles. Say I go to an article on Chevrolet Corvette and find things sourced to fan sites, and identify related articles sourced to blog or unambiguously failing WP:RS. Going through and pruning those contents is reasonable editing. @North8000:, adding a chock full of information sourced to whitestag.org, or pinetreeweb is a neutral weight as well as reliability concern. It's also a serious COI concern when the insertion of whitestag.org into numerous articles is predominantly done by someone affiliated with whitestag.org. Graywalls (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Graywalls: Doubtless there are areas that need work. My goal is for the articles to have accurate, encyclopedic information. And my expectation is just apply rules/guidelines in the way that is the norm for Wikipedia, and positive collaboration for improvement of articles by persons that are active at the articles. Per my posts it didn't look like that but maybe (and hopefully) I was wrong. Either way, if you're cool with all of that maybe we're all set. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @North8000:, this is quite black and white. The matter discussed here has minimal room for interpretation of WP:RS. A page about different types of Latte served at Julie's Coffee with a wall of text written about various ingredients, purpose and story behind products citing Julie's Coffee website, press release and Julie's buddies' blog sites is a hard no. Your argument saying that a source isn't third party is like saying that if an article is written about humans that anything written by a human isn't third party or is a COI. is ridiculous given how long you've been here and the amount of edits you've made. I believe you clearly understand that's a completely unacceptable sourcing to primary source. Graywalls (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Basing much of the article on reliable secondary source is one of the key requirements of Wikipedia articles. The removal of blog based contents shouldn't have even become a controversy. The repeated declines at Draft:Camp_Lambec is quite troubling. Declined four times for much of the same reason I've removed contents from many of the articles that are the focus of the complaints in this discussion. Graywalls (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Camp Lambec is not a scouting related article. It's inclusion here has nothing to do with this discussion. --evrik (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As info to clarify a possible mis-impression from above, there are three organizations (with related articles) referred to in this discussion which are not a part of BSA and who many would consider to be competitors of BSA. And a fourth which discussing scouting world wide. The biography article where Graywalls placed an Undisclosed Unpaid Editing tag followed by a COI tag and the one which is referred to above as being an open potential COI is an article on a person who has been dead for over 20 years. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please see the wording of UPE template. (I added the emphasis) "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". It says may, not was. Private evidence establishes probable cause for UPE. Note that I've publicly sought permission to release these from btphelps and I haven't heard back. Their permission is the only way Wikipedia policy allows the exhibition of these evidence in discussion. Talking of Camp Lambec draft, I mentioned it, because it's a good example of a big gap in the interpretation of acceptable use of primary and connected sources which appears to be part of the contention in this discussion. Graywalls (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Nationals lost to the Pirates, but it was fun seeing the game. The two things we all agree on: 1) many scouting related articles are poorly written; and 2) many scouting related articles need better citations. Can we find a way to resolve this discussion? The Scouting WikiProject could use another twenty editors to take on some of the fixer upper tasks. If Graywalls would agree to stop escalating their actions, and attacking the other editors, I for one would be happy to turn my attention to addressing some of their concerns - when I come back later in the month. Can we resolve this amicably? --evrik (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • These concerns go back years and years, and it's time, maybe, that they were escalated--but I don't see how Graywalls is "escalating their actions" or attacking other editors. Please don't ask Graywalls to stop beating their wife: it's poor manners. You want to address concerns? Don't fight edits by editors of good faith who do NOT have a conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO in the past you've also shown some "axe-to-grind" on these. I'm beginning to think that some of this is something that both feel this is the right thing to do. I'd agree on some common article improvement work, but I think some of comes from misinterpreting the realities that I discussed above of providing encyclopedic coverage as being promotional. Perhaps a dialog somewhere to discuss these aspects would be a good way to come to a common understanding/objective. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Evrik I'm glad to hear you had fun at the game. Were you the IP that started this discussion? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you provide diffs of Graywalls attacking other editors? None have been provided so far, and any unsubstantiated aspersions should be struck. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see anything of the sort; this was a report on what they are doing at these articles. IMO the only thing that needs to be struck is your aspersion that there were aspersions.  :-) North8000 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The original post in this thread says "personal attacks against btphelps". That allegation has been made several times both here and elsewhere and it needs to be either substantiated or withdrawn. Axad12 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd agree that "personal attacks" is the wrong word to use. The rest of the allegation and presentation above (or possibly all intended as examples of the general complaint) is the diffs themselves. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The diffs provided show no evidence of personal attacks, so the allegation still needs to be either substantiated or withdrawn. Also, evric has since doubled down (above) by saying 'attacking the other editors' (plural), so who are those editors supposed to be and where is the evidence that they have been subjected to personal attacks? Axad12 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I never said personal attacks what I said was that these are unsubstantiated aspersions, which they are. Either diffs of Graywalls attacking other editors should be presented or the allegation should be struck.
      As for the diffs presented in the original report I went over them in my first reply to this thread. They show an editor doing normal editing, nothing has been presented to show that Graywalls has done anything against policy. In fact as I showed in my first reply one of the allegations is just false.
      So again either provide diffs showing that Graywalls has attacked other editors, or strike your false statement that IMO the only thing that needs to be struck is your aspersion that there were aspersions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How about this, if you can reply with one diff that shows Graywalls attacking other editors I will apologise and strike my comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      North8000, the idea that Graywalls has attacked multiple editors seems not to derive ultimately from evrik but instead from a comment that you yourself made here [78], i.e. Graywalls has been on an "axe to grind" type quest and related rough treatment of editors.
      You’ve also described [79] Graywall's behaviour as Painful for several people, which is presumably part of the same allegation.
      Clearly these comments cannot relate to simple allegations of edit warring. Can you provide evidence to back up the claim of ‘rough treatment of editors’ or will you withdraw it? Axad12 (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cosigning JoelleJay and Graywall's sentiments about these articles; they're full of dubious use of primary sources and the assorted walled-garden cruft, and the editors stonewalling any cleanup certainly haven't improved them in the years on this site. Maybe Graywalls could have discussed changes first, but following WP:BRD is not a crime, and this report doesn't demonstrate actual wrongdoing (taking the issue to the COI board when you get stonewalled on a talk page? Also not a crime, and given that these pages are apparently being kept at their terrible level of quality by vested local consensus, is arguably the best option available.) Know what's worse than bold editing? Reverting tags without saying anything. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I know that I don't/wouldn't answer such questions regardless of what the answer is. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Copying and pasting much of what Evrik wrote in 3RR complaint, and geo-location of the IP coinciding with where the opening day of Washington Nationals game was (where Evrik self disclosed as having been at) looks like and quacks like a duck. If someone forgot to log-in, they'd acknowledge it. Starting a discussion here and neither confirming and denying who they're seems misleading to me and possibly WP:LOUTSOCK. The IP also pinged Evrik. Graywalls (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be interested in talking about article content and quality issues. I think I've made some important points, albeit probably lost due to being too scattered through a big thread in a less-than-ideal venue. Of folks that have been active on this I think that Graywalls and Drmies have noted areas where articles could certainly need more editor work improving them, but also formulated an incorrect picture of many aspects of the situation. IMO the latter has led to various mis-descriptions and contributed to what has appeared to me to be an axe-to-grind situation but which is probably well-intentioned quest to right type of mis-percieved misbehavior. I think that a more thorough, constructive conversation regarding the discussed article issues and perceived issues is needed. I'm happy and eager to have that. It could be a project scouting, an example article, my user space or wherever. Other than that I'm not going to participate or respond further on ANI type stuff at this ANI. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting moment to take your leave, as soon as your own conduct comes into question. Where are the diffs to substantiate your claim of 'rough treatment of editors' by Graywalls? Axad12 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that you have something mixed up. The only person that used the term that you quoted is you. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have said that my earlier statement was an aspersion and when asked to back that statement up (or any of the allegations you have made in thread) you have failed to do so.
    So I'll ask you again either show diffs showing Graywalls attacking other editors or strike your comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that you also have something mixed up. The only person that said what your are quoting is you.North8000 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No that is what was said about Graywalls, I said it was an unsubstantiated aspersion (which it is) and you said of my comment IMO the only thing that needs to be struck is your aspersion that there were aspersions. You have repeatedly failed to show any diff that Grapwalls has attacked other editors and have instead engage in what is now feeling like deliberate WP:IDHT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to persist in your claim that I said what you quoted ("rough treatment of editors" (not that that would be bad)) that would be a que for you to provide a diff of where I said what you quoted. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000, You used the quoted term here [80] on the 25th March. Substantiate it or withdraw it. Axad12 (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exact quote: Graywalls has been on an "axe to grind" type quest and related rough treatment of editors. What possible grounds can there be for denying that those are your own words? Axad12 (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not here, it's part of an assessment I made (of the provided info) at a now-closed item at a different noticeboard! And, on top of that, removed from important context. What the heck are you doing?! North8000 (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am asking you to substantiate a claim that you made about Graywalls elsewhere on Wikipedia. It makes no difference if it was said here or on a different noticeboard. Axad12 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are ignoring several things that I wrote in my previous post. I'm not going around n circles with you on this. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a disinterested party I think the volume of back-and-forth about what is ultimately a side issue will probably discourage uninvolved editors from participating in the main discussion. May I suggest hashing out the problem elsewhere, perhaps on someone's talk page? Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately this is not the side issue, editors have been throwing aspersions at Graywalls and any editor asking them not to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    The above discussion has gotten side-tracked over questions of who cast aspersions against whom. I suspect any number of people were more aggressive than was necessary. Main idea: are there any areas where uninvolved administrators can help get things back on track? Mackensen (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The simple fact is that Graywalls has done nothing against policy, as shown in my first reply to this thread intact one of the allegations is just plain false. Tl hide that fact editors harassing Graywalls have thrown around asperions and accusation, and have continually failed to show any evidence for their accusations.
    The only solution needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG against those editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked how administrators can help. Asserting misbehavior without evidence does not help. Sorting out fair comment from actual personal attacks requires diffs. Mackensen (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs to prove assertions of misbehaviour are what editors have been asking evrik and North8000 to provide, something they have failed to do. See the section below were I have provide diffs to back what I'm saying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points. But think with the side tracks gone there isn't any main ANI track left. Much remaining to talk about regarding the articles per my 12:36 4 April post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this whole conversation has jumped the shark. @Mackensen:, in my previous post I highlighted the original assertion. We don't have to agree on the subject, but that's how it was perceived at the time. Hope this helps. --evrik (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm having a hard time identifying anything wrong with Graywall's edits either individually or in combination. Its common for editors to address related issues on related pages during a session or series of sessions, I can't see how OP gets from there to "a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal formal warning of evrik and North8000

    The allegations made here are mostly a copy of evrik's report to the edit warring board.[81]. All that these reports show is that Graywalls sent a couple of articles to AfD, tagged several others, and opened a thread at WP:COIN. The only direct diff provided was that this edit contained a personal attack in the edit summary.[82]

    In the report to 3RR and here evrik and North8000 and continued to make aspersions against Greywalls.

    evrik:
    On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks[83]
    attacking the other editors[84]

    North8000:
    axe to grind[85][86][87]
    rough treatment of editors[88]

    North8000 has also repeatedly tried to deflect this issue by stating the above comments were never made.[89][90][91]

    Both evrik and North8000 have enough experience to know that allegations must be backed up diffs, but although asked repeatedly to provide such evidence they have not done so.

    I propose both are formally warned and reminded that unsubstantiated aspersions are WP:UNCIVIL. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ludicrous. The links are to unusually mild statements which I made on my take on the situations and diffs presented at noticeboards. And my statements about incorrect claims about what I said are accurate. And even if they were true, they would have been mild. A deeper analysis would show that the far more serious offenses above were false constructions, tying to gin up something out of much-milder-than common assessments of info presented at noticeboards regarding what I said. Similarly calling giving my take on diffs presented as being an "allegation without diffs". I'd hate to chew up my available volunteer Wiki-minutes on such an analysis but I'll do it need be. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a matter of demonstrable fact that allegations were made by Evrik and yourself that Graywalls was responsible for ‘personal attacks’[92] [93] and ‘rough treatment’ [94], both in relation to more than one editor.
    Those are not ‘mild’ allegations and you are aware that policy requires them to be substantiated. Unless that happens those comments are themselves just personal attacks and deserve to be treated accordingly.
    The underlying issue here is that all that Graywalls has actually done (as far as I can see) is to raise legitimate good faith concerns about sourcing and possible COI. Allegations such as those above are thus completely uncalled for. If they were to be retracted I'm sure it would help in bringing about an amicable solution to the various issues raised in this thread.
    Alternatively, you can go down the route of alleging that the COI concerns raised re: btphelps were a personal attack, but really that is both untrue and unlikely to take matters here towards an amicable solution. Axad12 (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What they're calling "personal attack". I simply quoted the byline in the source, https://web.archive.org/web/20131004232824/http://www.pinetreeweb.com/staghist.htm which was added in this edit. I then called out the COI, because the person who inserted it, per their self-disclosure that they are/were a co-director of Whitestag, justifying the removal, and explaining why there's a COI. Graywalls (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite so, and raising good faith concerns about a possible COI is not a personal attack.
    And in the case in point, most of the material on the COI was submitted through confidential channels – so any suggestion that it represents a personal attack is just unfounded speculation.
    Hence the allegation cannot be substantiated and must therefore be withdrawn. Axad12 (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This whole construction which gives the impression that something exists which doesn't has a long list of problems. Mis-stating "takes" on supplied diffs at appropriate notice board pages (and unusually mild ones at that) as being "unsubstantiated attacks", saying the given diffs here prove or support a point when they don't support it or in some cases even refute it. (which means people who don't analyze the diff can get the opposite impression) Collective arguments treating me and another editor as the same person and then "bundling" things between them, saying the the problem is that something that one person posted led to or resulted in something done by somebody else, saying or implying that somebody said something that they never said, mis-stating the mildest comments as being attacks. If I need to take a bunch of my available volunteer wiki-minutes to do and present a thorough analysis of what I referred to in this sub-thread I'll do it; it would be pretty big. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    North, how about looking at it this way. Looking at the above thread, virtually every single uninvolved editor has said you, Erik, are your cohort are in the wrong here. No sanction is coming for Graywalls. This thread is you jumping on trying to sanction him, then immediately backtracking, admitting as little fault as possible, and then trying to deflect attention by bringing the issues to your talk page or a venue where you can bury the problems, rather than a high-visibility area like COIN or ANI. The time to drop the stick and collaboratively edit, rather than generate massive piles of analysis, is now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Fuchs: You are doing the same thing. Nobody is my "cohort" and you are also lumping. When I was commenting (on open noticeboard threads and provided diffs) the most I recommended was that a warning or some advice be given. My previous post (12:36, 4 April 2024) you are referring to was to say to work collaboratively on the article issues which (unlike this wp:ani venue) are the proper place to discuss article issues. When you described the venues that I suggested you left out my first suggestions (article pages and project page) and only listed the last one of my offer (my talk page) and then called the suggested process "bury the problems". I never had any "stick" and am certainly not holding one. And finally, I never said anything about analysis of the overall topic or anything to do with Graywalls. The analysis that I might get forced to do would be on this problematic subthread tangent directed at me, which would result in showing that it has all of the misleading, incorrect statements and other problems described in my 14:58, 5 April 2024 post. Again, there never was a stick to drop and in any event I'm not holding one. As I described in my 12:36, 4 April 2024 post prior to this ludicrous new "stick" tangent, I was planning to leave this ani and was and am ready to work in a friendly, collaborative way with anyone (including Graywalls) to discuss both the articles in general and any specific articles. North8000 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just popping on to say that this statement, On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents, here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy, and then there is this personal attack in the edit summary. I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed. is where I said what the attacks were. I am busy IRL, and I am not going to go down the rabbit hole on this. The articles need to be improved. I hope we can work collaboratively on this. --evrik (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000 Evrik. I have again just for the sake of my sanity re-read the discussion at COIN. Again I can find no personal attacks, could you for clarity post diffs showing what you mean? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ActivelyDisinterested, if you want to persist in this ludicrous "stick" tangent subthread, and have a question for me on something that I said, please put it together as such. Other than that there's really nothing left here. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very much enjoying North8000's "STICK?! What "stick"? I don't have any "stick" here, this is ludicrous! LOOK, I said I was going to leave this discussion, and then–well, I didn't, but only because someone REPLIED to me! AT ANI!!!! OBVIOUSLY, that was TOTALLY unexpected, and I HAD to respond immediately–to that and EVERY SUBSEQUENT comment! I am 100% CAPABLE of leaving this discussion RIGHT NOW, but if anyone replies, I HAVE TO REPLY TO THEM! That's not a "stick", it's just–well, um–it's your fault! LUDICROUS!!!" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not ludicrous stick, I am simply asking you to prove with diffs what you have asserted. The fact you can't, or are unwilling to says everything about this whole issue. So please stop trying to derail the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole ludicrous subthread is basically you trying to mis-describe normal (actually much gentler than normal) appropriate assessments (including of provided diffs) at noticeboards as some type of misbehavior, and using wrong words to describe that participation. But my last post provided a way to clarify that. If you have a question for me regarding something specific that I wrote, please, with specifics pose the question as such.North8000 (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote that some of the comments here were unsubstantiated (something multiple other uninvolved editors have also stated), you replied IMO the only thing that needs to be struck is your aspersion that there were aspersions. I asked you to provide diffs that show that allegations that Graywalls has attacked other editors was true. You have failed to do so.
    Instead you have tried to distract or derail the discussion. Your attempts to dismiss all the other editors in this discussion who have disagreed with your position, without providing any form of prove is not ludicrous put it is getting ridiculous.
    Provide diffs and I will close this setion, strike my comments, and apologise. Otherwise stop trying to distract from the real issue, that Graywalls was editing in a normal fashion and this report appears to be a way of removing them from the subject area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not responding to vague misleading innuendo and you saying that I'm supposed to prove things that I never said. As I said before, If you have a question for me regarding something specific that I wrote, please, with specifics pose the question as such. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not vague, not misleading, not innuendo. Specific question with diffs and quotes, everything you have failed to provide. I have provided diffs above that you have in fact posted everything I have claimed, it is freely available in the edit history of this page, please stop trying to gaslight this discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically my quote comes from this diff,[95] which definitely shows you did say that, so just stop lying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ?? It shows me saying something which there was nothing wrong with, which I never denied saying, and is not one of the things which you falsely claimed that I said. In this subthread you are racking up a long list of actual false accusations and personal attacks in addition to the previously referred to problems. It's time to drop the stick of this ludicrous subthread.North8000 (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows you saying the thing you have repeatedly said you didn't say (things that I never said, literally in this reply chain). I think you should drop it at this point, and also repeating the same BS over and over won't make it true. Show diffs or go find something useful to do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, the things that you provided diffs to were giving my take (and a very mild one at that) on the provided diffs at the noticeboards. These are appropriate and normal statements and of course I said them. So it's not correct to ask me to provided diffs to support a take on diffs. But now let's look at your "I asked you to provide diffs that show that allegations that Graywalls has attacked other editors was true." The only basis for that is a claim that I said that Graywalls was attacking other editors. I never said that. This is an example of what I was referring to. And yes, I was ready to drop this a long time ago and that remains the case. If people are posting leaving the mis-impression that I've something wrong and asking for a warning for doing something that I didn't do, of course that forces me to respond to correct the mis-impression. Let's see if someone stokes it again with one of those. And again I was ready to drop this a long time ago and that remains the case. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not going through another of your attempted distractions. Provide diffs or go do something else, because as every editor has said nothing shown so far shows Graywalls doing anything wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This tangent / subthread isn't about Graywalls, it's about your accusations of me, and besides being incorrect, your accusations have the long list of problems that I described. And you are repeating one of them. Saying I should provide diffs on assessments I made of diffs. North8000 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is about Graywalls, and your continued inability to post diffs. That's all it's about.
    This started because I looked through the report couldn't find in the links what was alleged and asked for clarification. Since then all that has happened is evasion, distraction and nonsense. But what hasn't happened is anyone posting anything to show the original report is in anyway justified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point the whole discussion should be closed or left to archive. Their is obvious disagreement with the original report, and no appetite for my proposal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea and summary. And while we certainly butted heads pretty hard here, for me it was about the subthread and not you, and I wish you the best and maybe we can work together sometime in a more fun way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely agree. I'm always available to do the boring technical parts to allow other editors to focus on writing content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question for Evrik

    This is a distraction from the main issue, and isn't something evrik should have to answer.

    @Evrik: I'm not sure if you missed the question the first three or four times it was asked, but are you the IP who started this discussion? I'll tell you why I am asking - if you started the discussion, I think you have a responsibility to follow through. If you made accusations against another editor but you are now saying that you are "busy" in real life and you don't want to "go down the rabbit hole on this" that isn't fair to Graywalls. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are not entitled to a response or another editor's time, especially when you're freely casting aspersions with no evidence and it's difficult to read your line of questioning as being in good faith: as mentioned several times, is there actually an answer to "are you a sockpuppet?" that's capable of actually informing anything? I doubt it, so step off with this because you're well over the line of hounding. Remsense诉 03:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am casting no aspersions. Four days ago Axad12 wondered who started the thread and admin Canterbury Tail said they were "Pretty sure it was Evrik". I assume Evrik is an adult and if they do not with to answer the question, they can just say that. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I assume that you are an adult that can tell they obviously do not want to answer the question, and thereby stop asking them repeatedly in order to make a point. It's disruptive. If I thought you may be asking in bad faith before, I am more confident of it now: being deliberately obtuse to an explicit silence does not make me think you actually care about an honest answer to your question, and asking it is purely rhetorical.
    Speaking of silence: you've also failed to elaborate on what answer could possibly even be helpful. I'd prefer you just drop it, though. Remsense诉 03:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be taken to SPI. If Evrik was the IP then they have been actively deceiving the community and may deserve sanctions. JoelleJay (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive towards me but I do want an honest answer to the question. That's why I asked. Please let Evrik speak for Evrik. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly Evrik doesn't have to respond to this, and we don't get to make that demand. No editor has the obligation to publicly associate themselves with an IP address and we're not entitled to an answer. I think it should be dropped, I don't see any usefulness in continuing down this path. And, in my personal opinion, I think with your current aggressiveness and insistence on using my name to demand an answer on this you should probably leave this thread. Canterbury Tail talk 12:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't be asking any editor to content their account to an IP address. This is why I left the IP out of the previous section. It is also irrelevant, as the report here is more or less the same as evrik posted to 3RR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail and ActivelyDisinterested:, however I do believe there's WP:DUCK here. Users are not required to connect IP to to their user name, but editing while logged out can be inappropriate. It's rather peculiar they'd ping Evrik, use copy-and-paste to start a discussion here. Whoever that maybe, a disinterested user isn't likely to start this kind of discussion and editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny of their own editing is not an appropriate use of alt-account, or logged out editing. Graywalls (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User Zolgensma NOTHERE

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

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

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

    That's not "wiki jargon". The fact you don't understand the terms, combined with this rambling reply, makes me think this is a WP:CIR issue (and that is wiki jargon).
    Your draft does 'not demonstrate it's something we should have an article on. It's overly trivial, and cites unreliable sources (WP:TOI), not independent reviews that would show notability. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I Disagree, it is well sourced article. Not trivial, and clearly demonstrates notability. Quoting unusual terms such as "Film spam" and "we" is wiki jargon only.Zolgensma (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declined Draft:The Family Star per lack of sources to denote notability. WP:TOI is considered generally reliable to unreliable throughout Wikipedia, but when it comes to film related articles, we take it as unreliable (per WP:ICTFSOURCES). And the majority of sources are TOI and I couldn't find any Independent sources either, other than the primary ones. Hence declined. Since the movie is coming out tomorrow and the creator (as well as other duplicate entires) seem desperate to have a Wikipedia article before that, should go through the decline comments and try to actually improve the article to prove it's mainspace worthy. Rather than spamming draftspace, that would actually do something. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You decline, I dont want to participate in this non sense anymore. I have improved the article, and you say spamming it, what non sense is this. The film is releasing tomorrow.Zolgensma (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds: @CNMall41: You can proceed with this if you like but hear me out.
    1. This specific draft Draft:Family Star has not been edited by Zolgensma or related users. See the full history here and ctrl-f the name.
    2. As mentioned by @The Herald: the draft I just mentioned only has 1 The Times of India source which is a review which is totally acceptable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines on sources#Questionable: Note that WP:RSN considers Times of India to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. See WP:RSP.
    3. The film has been released and has been the subject of six reliable reviews as evident at Draft:Family_Star#Critical reception.
    4. The article is well sourced and does not have any unreliable sources. Above all, the article is neutral and mentions the negative reception.
    5. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the following draft shall be accepted via AfC and the current redirect Family Star can be deleted to make way for the move. DareshMohan (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello all, No opinion on behaviour issues tackled above but I strongly concur with DareshMohan. This all very confusing.... there are currently 2 Drafts (one clearly being ready for Main (but with the wrong title (without The), and the subject clearly notable) and one redirect. Out of consideration for the reader, this should be addressed. May I suggest to move the Draft with the correct title and merge the improved content? The Family Star should apparently be the title. I understand this is not a forum to discuss content issues but as we can't edit peacefully until this is resolved, I thought it made sense to come here and express this concern. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Update I have accepted the draft Family Man as The Family Man and made a edit request to change redirect target to the article. Have declined draft The Family Star. Hope that fixes it. A note for Zolgensma: please have a look at the entire draftspace to see if there's already a duplicate submission next time to avoid this clustermess. Thanks and happy editing all. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, that's most helpful! (For the record, you meant Family Star and The Family Star), most evidently. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed. Family star, not man. Coincidentally, that's another series, lol. But yeah. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, hope The Family Star will not be again moved to draft space by CNMall41 citing some inappropriate and illogical reason. And leaves the article alone without disrupting it again and again. Zolgensma (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand your frustration, but those moves were not exactly illogical. They had sound basis and those versions were not ready for mainspace. Hence they moved it back. Also, I'd urge you to take a step back and have a detailed analysis of situation before starting to accuse an editor who have been around for over 10 years and has literally 100 times more experience. Now since the draft is accepted, expand it with everything you got and show me the discussions and all were worth it. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, but experience of an editor is different from clout. Assuming good faith is expected from experienced editors. Thanks Zolgensma (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability is not the reason we are here. Consensus was that it is not notable so the discussion should have been had in draft space. Looks like it has now which is the appropriate channel and if done in the first place would have avoided this mess. That's exactly how the process should go. We ARE here because of editor conduct. An attempt was made to get around the process by an editor who created the page under alternative names and possibly from multiple accounts. And, their comments even up to today show they have a hard time working in a collaborative environment. So, if this is acceptable conduct please let me know and I will never address a similar issue in the future. If it is not acceptable conduct, I hope it will still be addressed. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your message but where was the consensus that it was not notable? I have not seen any discussion about it in the talk page. I do not understand this assumption of yours since beginning. It is your belief that somebody agreed with you that the article is not notable. Apart from you and me no body spent this much time in this article. You have complicated it by repeated speedy deletions or draft moves. In addition to this why is conduct and collaborative editing coming into picture here. At one point in time you created confusion by maintaining two drafts ("one clearly being ready for Main (but with the wrong title (without The), and the subject clearly notable, and one redirect") of same article with only your messages, all over, I have not seen any other editor agreeing with you on any specific point about non-notability. It was all your monopoly throughout, and until the film got released you kept on redirecting and drafting. These 5 days is a waste of time and energy of all editors involved. Complicating simple issues is not expected from a top experienced editor like you. so I would request your kind and respected self never address a similar issue in future. Thank you so much for being my guru.Zolgensma (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. To consider it "unreliable" in the present case is therefore not what the current consensus has established, and especially to state that WP:TOI is considered generally reliable to unreliable throughout Wikipedia, but when it comes to film related articles, we take it as unreliable (per WP:ICTFSOURCES) is thus particularly incorrect.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • RSN has a new relevant discussion for those interested. Regardless of the overall publication being reliable or not, individual articles that fall under NEWSORGINDIA are not. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll

    I have restored this from the archive: there is a concrete proposal on the table on which many people have !voted; it requires administrative attention. --JBL (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot auto-archived it again, so I've restored it and substituted DNAU template to prevent archival for the next 30 days. NicolausPrime (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @S Marshall: closed a controversial RFC today at Talk:Tim Hunt, see Talk:Tim Hunt#RfC: 2015 remarks. Whilst acknowledging there appeared to be a consensus, he reminded editors that consensus can't over-rule founding principles, the second pillar, and core content policy and quoting the amplification on his talk page these cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong. He later emphasised this on his own talk page [96] in response to a query [97].

    Judging by that query, it appears that the key point in the closure was being ignored; namely WP:PROPORTION. Shortly thereafter, and before any reply, an edit was made to Tim Hunt which appeared to ignore the closure[98]. Noting the history of edit warring at the article, I chose to add a {{npov}} tag and start a talk page discussion. I felt that any revert of a bold edit would result in an edit war and had no intention to revert war.

    My tag was removed by JayBeeEll [99] with the edit summary "Don't be silly", I restored the tag and it was once again removed by JayBeeEll [100] with the edit summary "Yes sure let's see how this turns out", which appears to be an intention to revert war. The comment in the talk page [101] in response to my concerns and the unnecessary 3RR warning on my talk page appears to confirm [102] that.

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

    The behavior displayed by WCM is very similar to the behavior that led to this only one month ago; it is disappointing that he has not been able to accommodate himself to the fact that his view is a minority, both relative to WP editors and to the views represented in reliable sources. At least he stopped after a single round of edit-warring about the ridiculous tagging. As with Thomas B, my hope is that this can be settled by a change of behavior, without the need for any sanctions. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've no wish to comment on this ridiculous tag edit war, and I'd prefer to limit my involvement with the page to closing that one RfC, but I do want to say tempers are extremely frayed in this topic area and there's definitely scope for an uninvolved sysop to step in and restore order. Please.—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a ridiculous edit war, were it not for the fact I refused to edit war over this. The fact remains that removing the tags in the way JayBeeEll did is counter to accepted policy. I would acknowledge @S Marshall:'s comment that this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. I have been asking for that for weeks, the reference to the removal of Thomas Basboll, is exactly the point I wish to make. If editors are convinced they're right and there are enough of them make a fuss, they can remove what they see as an obstruction by lobbying loudly here. The edit war that editor attempted to start, and its clear that was his intention, was a repeat of the same tactics used previously. I have made no attempt to filibuster I simply tried to bring external opinion but that's pretty unlikely given the toxic nature of editing at present. WCMemail 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editing situation got much less toxic when you stopped participating for a few days; maybe you should try that again? Certainly it would be good for an uninvolved admin to tell you the same thing everyone else on this thread has said. --JBL (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point to anything I've said that contributes to a toxic atmosphere. As for comments contributing to a toxic atmosphere[103] "Don't be silly [104] "Yes sure let's see how this turns out" whilst edit warring to remove tags that encourage outside input. WCMemail 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies.
    That's an extremely uncharitable reading of the closure, apparently because you just don't like the results. The close was finding that the RfC consensus narrowly found for inclusion, with a warning to follow guiding principles of the Wiki while doing so. That's it. The rest of it is you projecting onto the closure and making vague, hand-wavy assertions that the close is against policy.
    Since you won't be available for a couple days anyway, I suggest you wait and see what proposed edits come from the RfC before making any further comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I at no point said the close was against policy, I actually think given the toxic atmosphere he was entering @S Marshall: made a very good closure of that malformed RFC. The reminder that local consensus can't trump core policy seems to have fallen on deaf ears it seems. WCMemail 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CON has by definition got to be aligned with the WP:PAGs since it embodies "a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". So if @S Marshall's close is "very good", it follows it must have correctly divined consensus, which you now need to accept. If however, you think the close has arrived at a problematic WP:LOCALCON you need to initiate a close review. Shit or get off the pot. Bon courage (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely this. WCM, you can't have it both ways: you can't claim the close "trumps core policy", while acknowledging it was a good close. The close in fact emphasizes that any proposed changes have to adhere to core policy. It seems you're claiming that the finding of inclusion inherently violates policy, so which is it? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point did I say the close trumps policy, that's your strawman. The closer clearly refers to core policies and makes it plain that they can't be overridden by a local consensus. He also singled out that I and others couldn't be ignored because we were making well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy further adding While editors are implementing option 1 and option 2A, they should have regard to core content policy, and specifically WP:PROPORTION. It's clear from this comment [105] there is no intention to implement the full intention of the close The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that WP:PROPORTION isn't terribly relevant. There is WP:TAG team of editors are acting in concert and per @S Marshall:'s comment this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. WCMemail 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh I tried, but if you're intent on digging a hole, I can't stop you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you aren't available for the next couple of days, why the hell are you opening an ANI thread? "Reluctantly bringing it here" yeah right. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WCM's editing regarding the Tim Hunt article has been as tendentious as Basboll's in staunchly refusing to get the point regarding the fact that their viewpoint is a minority and continuing to beat a dead horse and engage in WP:WIKILAWYERING in an attempt to fillibuster discussions regarding the issue, rather than just moving on. I would support a topic or page ban from Tim Hunt if WCM does not desist with his aggressive rejection of the talkpage consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that WCM has continued his disruption regarding the article, I firmly support a topic ban now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't done any editing that would remotely be described as disruptive. [106] Any editing I do is immediately reverted, this was clearly constructive. WCMemail 12:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely astonishing. --JBL (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • support topic ban due the editor's apparent unwillingness to drop the stick and refusal to get the point of the RfC. I commented at the ANI thread where Thomas B was topic banned. Given the RfC I moved on and have not touched the article or the RfC. The level of name-calling on display at that article over an ancient ten-day kerfuffle in the bro-sphere easily matched the most acrimonious mutual accusations of genocide I have witnessed on Wikipedia. EE squared. I had never heard of Tim Hunt. He seems nice? But if the episode in question is included in the article -- and there seems no question that RS has covered it in immense detail - then the article should dispassionately state that Tim Hunt said what he said. This editor's contention that it should not (because the poor man nearly committed suicide over this) utterly lacks a grounding in policy, and no evidence was ever presented of this assertion either. It betrays an emotional investment in this incident that baffles me, frankly. I would hesitate to participate on the talk page due to this editor's past level of vitriol, and the time sink it again likely would become. I am not following this thread. If anyone has questions about what I just said, please ping me. Elinruby (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      [107] I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do. in your on words your motives are to expose another misogynist. I am quite astounded that you'd openly mock someone driven near to suicide. WCMemail 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I check back at this article after taking a break from it and find the RfC has been closed, consensus established and the article fixed accordingly. Great: the journey is over, the plane has landed, and the engines are turned off .... But oddly the whining sound continues as there's one editor who seemingly can't move on. If this continues sanctions may be appropriate. Bon courage (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the other problem editor in this mix, who was page banned from Tim Hunt, has now started beating the dead horse at BLPN.[108] Bon courage (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I reported this straight to the ban-implementing administrator this time, as this is an obvious attempt at WP:GAMING, WP:STICK, WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I will remember to prefer broader topic bans next time. NicolausPrime (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given lack of response I guess this was the wrong venue. I won't be trying to get Thomas B sanctioned for this in particular any further, but should we post some sort of final warning to User talk:Thomas B? NicolausPrime (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      ... and today User:Thomas B still continues to post about Tim Hunt on BLPN. This earlier comment "I won't be participating too actively" (bolding mine) indicates that the user is going to continue to disrupt. So we have to upgrade Thomas B's page ban to a topic ban at a minimum. But given this user's stubborn, prolonged refusal to cease disruption, an additional block from the whole Wikipedia for a few months is needed as a deterrent, in my view. NicolausPrime (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And now the BLPN discussion forum-shopped by Thomas B resulted in yet another editor getting dragged to ANI. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've started a new ANI thread to expand Thomas B's sanctions [109]. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:FORUMSHOPPING and other issues. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Does this topic fall under GenSex? GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The overall Tim Hunt article wouldn't but the section on the controversy would fall under a GENSEX topic ban, as they are "broadly construed". (So would this thread, I believe.) Loki (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for Wee Curry Monster. WCM had numerous opportunities to change course. All this has been sinking our time for over a month already. Since the editor is not willing to drop the stick, a sufficiently broad sanction is the only remaining solution. NicolausPrime (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Please somebody make it stop. Bon courage (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per the really excruciating refusal to drop the stick or adjust behavior in any way. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Pretty shameful episode for WP and ANI. WP:CIR, and the lack of such competence is what created this mess. It's very clear that some editors pushed content, got an editor banned from the article, and opined in the RfC without first bothering to read the sources. fiveby(zero) 18:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Fiveby: Your latest contribution on the talk-page is a bit cryptic, and invoking CIR here is bizarre, but I'm quite sure that if you were to participate in the constructive content discussions (i.e., the ones that don't involve WCM or Thomas B) the result would be positive. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I try and limit my participation to finding and providing sources for other editors, how is it constructive and why would i participate when the remaining editors, those who survived ANI, are those which have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to read those sources? I'll try and explain my 'cryptic' comment on the talk page. It was just a suggestion to WCM that what he is doing might be futile. You cannot force editors to read sources. An editor familiar with the reading may have reverted that content, but would never have called it "disingenuous" in the edit summary. As far as "can't fix stupid" goes, tho it is couched in terms of the content generated by conflict rather than collaboration, did not my choice to use that particular phrase make my opinion clear enough? fiveby(zero) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a reason that WCM's edits to the article get reverted but your edits a couple weeks ago did not, and it's not about the unwillingness of people to read sources. I mean obviously if you change your mind but decide that what you have to add is a bunch of comments about other editors not reading the sources then I don't think that will go great. But almost everyone who has contributed in the discussions on the talk-page has shown a willingness to listen to others as part of developing a consensus. Anyhow, don't mind me, do what you want! --JBL (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. This is just blatant WP:STICK and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The consensus in the RFC was clear. The consensus on talk about how to implement the RFC is reasonably clear. Their comments after the RFC were full of aspersions and battlefield behavior, ending with Feel free to disabuse me of the presumption that having "won" and righted a great wrong to expose the terribly sexist misognynist that you don't intend to do that. --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. WCM has been popping up at literally anywhere on Wikipedia this is being discussed to re-litigate a view of the RFC that literally nobody else holds. The RFC close even mentions him showing up at the close request I made to pressure whoever was going to close it. Even after the close he's totally failed to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and thus unfortunately we've got to force the issue with a topic ban. Loki (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban since apparently more input is needed to get this closed. The linked discussions and the ongoing and all over discussions show that WCM isn't going to voluntarily leave it alone and needs a TB to enforce it. Star Mississippi 12:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

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

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

    That is all of my contributions.

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

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

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

    I note editors have simply alleged misconduct, largely unsupported by diffs. Addressing the talk quote taken out of context by Aquillion. This is a response to [112], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misoginy is not mine but for example [113] he's just another misogynist.

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

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

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

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

    • I note that WCM continues to expand the number of fora in which they are conducting their battles, including this astonishingly condescending advice to another user to drop the stick. IMO, there are plenty of !votes in the section above for an administrator to make an assessment of consensus here. --JBL (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As WCM continues to expand the number of different fora on which they're pursuing this matter, I am begging any administrator to review the discussion above and make a determination whether there is consensus for anything to be found there. --JBL (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm the one WCM was talking to in JBL's first link. I'm a little confused what JBL objects to; I had a nice conversation with WCM (despite us having differing opinions on the Thomas B matter). It seems to me that editors using user talk pages to talk about Wikipedia-related matters is exactly what they're intended for. There was no ongoing conversation I wasn't party to to canvass, and I've found that one-on-one discussions are very effective at helping both parties learn. I haven't read the rest of this thread, and so offer no opinion on it, but the first and third diffs presented above seem to me to be first an editor trying to give context, and second an editor asking for a sanity check. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    WP:HOUNDING and vexatious refusal to drop the stick

    This is getting vexatious to the point of WP:HOUNDING. This thread has twice been archived and twice restored, now adding a 30 day template to prevent archiving [114],[115]. I can't even have a polite discussion with another editor without my contribution history being scrutinised (see above) and presented as something sinister. I have demonstrated the allegations of forum shopping and refusal to drop the stick are not credible. Further, the article is no longer on my watch list, I haven't edited it since 25 March and don't intend to edit it. There are clearly no ongoing issues involving this editor i.e. there are no urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems to be addressed and no credible evidence has been produced to show they ever existed. WCMemail 14:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (uninvolved non-admin comment) It's been unarchived because there is a clear consensus for a topic ban, and has been for a while now. The only vexatious behaviour I see is on your part. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra)

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

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

    For literally years and years on end Pataliputra has had a complete disregard for how much space there is in articles and the logic/reason behind adding their images, often resorting to shoehorning often irrelevant images which often look more or less the same as the other placed image(s), and generally bring no extra value to the readers other than making them read a mess. I don't want to engage in speculations, but when Pataliputra is randomly placing their uploaded images into other images [116] (which is incredibly strange and not something I've ever seen in Commons), it makes me suspect a reason for their constant shoehorning and addition of often irrelevant/non-helpful images is to simply promote the stuff they have uploaded.

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

    1. [117]
    2. [118]
    3. [119]
    4. [120]
    5. [121]
    6. [122]
    7. [123]
    8. [124]
    9. [125]
    10. [126]
    11. [127]
    12. [128]
    13. [129]
    14. [130]
    15. [131]
    16. [132]
    17. [133]
    18. [134]
    19. [135]
    20. [136]
    21. [137]
    22. [138]
    23. [139]
    24. [140]
    25. [141]

    Recently, a user voiced their concern [142] against the excessively added images by Pataliputra at Badr al-Din Lu'lu'. What did Pataliputra do right after that? Respond to the criticism? No, ignore it and add more images (eg [143]). Did Pataliputra bother to take in the criticism even remotely by the other user and me at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' afterwards? They did not. In fact, they added even more image after that [144]. Other recent examples are these [145] [146] [147] [148]. I also found a thread from 2019 also showing disaffection to their edits related to images [149].

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

    As already explained [150] the most relevant information is not always in the form of text. I can create an article about Central Asian art with 135 images in it, and receive a barnstar for it [151], or create articles with no images at all. The article about Badr al-Din Lu'lu' is in between: there is little textual information about this ruler, but on the contrary a lot of very interesting information in visual form (works of art, manuscripts, which have reached us in astounding quality and quantities). These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler. There are no fixed rules, and it depends on the subject matter, the key point being relevance. In general, the images I am adding are not "random gallery" at all: they are properly commented upon in captions, and usually sourced, and are very valuable in their own right. Of course, we can discuss about the relevance of any given image, that's what Talk pages are for... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are indeed adding images that are not relevant, and often shoehorning it a that, something you were criticized for at Talk:Badr al-Din Lu'lu' and which the numerous diffs demonstrate. That is what this whole report is about - when you have been doing this for literal years, that's when the talk page is no longer of use and ANI is the place to go. And Central Asian art is a poor example, it's an article about art.. of course images are more relevant there, and this is ultimately about your bad edits, not good ones - so please address those. I'm glad you got a barnstar, but this is not what's being discussed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These objects are what makes Badr al-Din Lu'lu' remarkable as a ruler.
    Unless you have citations to back that up, this is WP:OR. Simply put, we don't need this many images on an article, especially an article that has little textual information about this ruler (which might be an argument for deletion or merge). — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some recent diffs to add to HistoryofIran's list. Pataliputra is adding original research on several Armenian churches articles, claiming that they contain "muqarnas" and Seljuk/Islamic influence without a reliable source verifying that.
    [152] used the website "VirtualAni" as a source, which the user themselves claims is unreliable And this entire section the user added is not even supported by VirtualAni, it's entirely original research.
    [153] adding "muqarnas" to an image without citation.
    [154] Created this article and the first image is not even an image of the church itself (see the Russian wiki image for comparison), it's just one of the halls (incorrently called "entrance" so more original research), again called seljuk "muqarnas". He also separated sections to "old Armenian church" and "Seljuk gavir" as if all of it isn't part of the church itself. The church was never converted or anything to have a separate "seljuk gavit" and "old Armenian church" section, and the lead has POV undue claim as last sentence.
    [155] Created another Armenian church article where most of the content is not about the church and mostly consists of a large paragraph copied from Muqarnas article. None of the sources even mention the Astvatsankal Monastery, it is entirely original research.
    [156] Again adding "muqarnas" to an image with "VirtualAni" as the source
    [157] Another new section entirely copied from the Muqarnas article that doesn't even mention the church in question
    [158] Another created article with original research added to images and "VirtualAni" added as a source KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like it or not, and I'm sorry if I hurt some Armenian sensitivities, the presence of Islamic decorative elements in Armenian architecture is a well-known and ubiquitous phenomenon, including, yes the famous muqarnas (an Arabic term by the way...). You could start by reading for example:
    • Guidetti, Mattia (2017). "7 - The 'Islamicness' of Some Decorative Patterns in the Church of Tigran Honents in Ani". Architecture and landscape in medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 170–177. ISBN 9781474411301.
    • Blessing, Patricia (8 March 2017). Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100-1500. Edinburgh University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-4744-1130-1.
    • Ghazarian, Armen; Ousterhout, Robert (2001). "A Muqarnas Drawing from Thirteenth-Century Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings during the Middle Ages". Muqarnas. 18: 141–154. doi:10.2307/1523305. ISSN 0732-2992.
    • Maranci, Christina (14 September 2018). The Art of Armenia: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-19-026901-2.
    • Eastmond, Antony (1 January 2017). Tamta's World: The Life and Encounters of a Medieval Noblewoman from the Middle East to Mongolia. Cambridge University Press. p. 297. doi:10.1017/9781316711774.011. The most obvious architectural form that was adopted in Armenian churches was the muqarnas vault. A fine example is the complex muqarnas that was used to build up the central vault of the zhamatun at Harichavank, which was added to the main church in the monastery by 1219. The origin of this type of vaulting clearly comes from Islamic sources, but it is used very differently here.
    Despite the numerous articles on Armenian churches in general, I was surprised that there were no articles on such major and significant sites as Church of the Holy Apostles (Ani), or St Gregory of Tigran Honents, so I tried to bring them out of oblivion. I am sure there are things to improve, and you are welcome to help. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this have to do with KhndzorUtoghs diffs? If you have WP:RS, by all means, use them. But you didn't do it in those diffs, which is a problem. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing this up. I'm afraid Pataliputra has probably made tons of these type of edits and got away with them, since there are not that many people who are well-versed in the articles they edit or look fully into their additions since they initially appear ok. Now that you've brought this up, I might as well talk about the other disruptive conducts by Pataliputra, especially since they're ignoring this report and their conduct.
    I have encountered a lot of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and even WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV and WP:CIR issues from Pataliputra. For example at Saka in 2023, Pataliputra engaged in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR/WP:TENDENTIOUS, completely disregarding the academic consensus on the ethnicity of the Saka and the differing results on their genetics, bizarrely attempting to push the POV that DNA equals ethnicity and trying to override the article with the DNA info they considered to be "mainstream" without any proof [159] [160]. Or at Talk:Sultanate of Rum, where they engaged in pure WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, and initially didn't even bother to look into what the main subject "Turco-Persian" meant, mainly basing their argument on a flawed interpretation of its meaning (for more info, see my comment at [161]) until they finally read its meaning but continued to engage in WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to push their POV. Another veteran used also mentioned that they engaged in WP:SYNTH here recently [162]. There's also this comment where they again were called out for WP:OR by yet another veteran user in 2023 [163]. There's also this ANI thread from 2022, Pataliputra "has a long history of 1. original research, spamming both image and text across hundreds of Wikipedia articles..". Mind you, these are not new users or IPs calling Pataliputra out, but users who have been consistently active for years. I'm sure I can dig out even more diffs if need be. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have much time, so I will just note that while I have previously thought Pataliputra needs to cool it with the images, they are—let's be honest—about as biased as any of us in the minefield of Central/West/South Asian topics. I would oppose any sanction that goes further than restrictions on image-adding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Pataliputra's personal attack ("hurt some Armenian sensitivities") merit a sanction on its own? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no personal attack intended. I am quite a fan of Armenian culture (I recently built up Zakarid Armenia from a 15k to a 90k article, created Proshyan dynasty, and revamped several of the Armenian Monasteries articles, which for the most part were completely unreferenced). But your comments above seemed to reflect a strong antipathy towards any suggestion of Seljuk/Islamic influences on Armenian art (the ubiquitous muqarnas etc...). I know this is a sensitive matter, but it shouldn't be: in my view this is more a proof that cultures can collaborate and exchange in peaceful and beautiful ways. I think I have also improved significantly the sourcing since you made your last comments. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    KerryBlue1852: suspected SPA whitewashing St. Michael's College School, Toronto

    KerryBlue1852 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) appears to be a single-purpose account created to remove critical information about St. Michael's College School in Toronto. I note that the school's mascot is a Kerry Blue terrier and the school was founded in 1852, which suggests the SPA-ness might be intentional or that the account might be a COI concern.

    The user has repeatedly removed well-sourced information about bullying ([164], [165], [166]) and sex crimes ([167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174]) — as well as legitimate edits updating neutral information.

    The user has twice been warned on their Talk: page about whitewashing, with Drmies posting {{uw-disruptive3}} and Meters posting {{uw-tdel4}}, both in May 2023. Since then the user has twice removed well-sourced information about sexual bullying and minimised criticism of the school. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked them via a partial block from St. Michael's College School for persistent disruptive editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Hammersoft. One wonders if they're capable of editing any other page but the school's page; we'll see, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Hammersoft — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have placed a {{uw-coi}} notice on their talk page; ideally, this should have been done before the matter came here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The user was pointed to WP:COI in 2023 over edits to this article by Drmies. Meters (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    70.26.69.204 is blatantly them, judging by their edits. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Add Comms2024 (talk · contribs) to the list as well. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just posted to Talk:Comms2024 with {{uw-disruptive1}}, {{uw-coi}} and pointers to WP:BLOCKEVASION, WP:COI, WP:AUTOPROB and Streisand effect. I've requested EC 30/500 protection, if people would like to opine on the request. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Randy Kryn: refusal to respect WP:BURDEN and WP:NOTDIRECTORY

    At the WP article Principia Discordia, I had removed what was WP:OR, unsourced (WP:BURDEN), sourced by non-RS (including WP:SPS), not supported by the refs given (WP:Fictitious references), what was only supported by a primary source, a very long quote (which may or may not be copyrighted), and a list of editions of the work (WP:NOTDIRECTORY).


    Then, User:Randy Kryn completely restored the article from before my edits without caring about the specificities of any of my edits. They were then reverted by me and made aware of the policies they were breaking. They then reverted me and asked that I make an RfC or something (for what purpose, it is unclear to me) and accused me of unfairly making RfD for multiple redirects. I reverted the user and told the user to AGF and made them once again aware of the policies they were breaching and I told the user I would go to ANI if they persisted. They reverted me and claimed it was necessary all of my edits be discussed and that my edits were done without, it seems, knowing much about the religion (I have no idea what WP:BURDEN, using WP:RS, etc., has to do with the knowledge of such a niche topic).

    The argument the user seems to make for their restoration is that all information related to the subject are WP:BLUESKY (public domain materials and information [175], the topic is well-known [176]), which is obviously false.

    On the article Eris (mythology), I had removed the WP:TRIVIA section, 80% of which was about Ddiscordianism. Randy Kryn also reverted my removal here, stating that many of the claims were well-sourced. However, it is clear that all claims in the section partaining to Discordianism are only sourced from primary sources: the Principia Discordia and an interview from Robert Anton Wilson.

    The user also messaged me, stating that the articles were adequate articles and that the information removed were public domain information across the entire spectrum of Wikipedia's Discordian collection. They have also stated that doing numerous RfDs on the week end was to be avoided. They then asked me to revert all my edits and RfD nominations related to Discordianism.

    All in all, it seems the user is simply refusing the comply with WP:BURDEN and WP:RS for reasons I cannot understand, and appears to be WP:STONEWALLING. Veverve (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • The editor is taking a WikiHatchet to not only that one book page but to Wikipedia's Discordian collection and time sinking a swarm of literally hundreds of edits and nominations on a two-day run of edits to the topic. Please check their history page for the last couple of days (April 5, 6) to see what I mean. I'm asking for a pause in these edits for experienced page editors and others to be given the time to have a reasonable conversation with the editor who (looking at their deletion nominations for dozens of perfectly appropriate and relevant redirects) seems to have little or no knowledge of the topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are my rights here? Can I ping other editors who've worked on these pages to give testimony that the edits are very much over the line of both not knowing the topic and overt focusing on the topic to dilute it? Not everyone reads this page, but many do read the articles that are being both deleted and edited of essential and appropriate information. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Randy Kryn: I do not know whether this can constitute WP:CANVASSING or not, so I advise you wait for an admin to reply to this question. Veverve (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Veverve, of course, but thanks for the reminder. I have mentioned this ANI attempt at one spot, don't know the fairness of putting up a topic such as this and then not discussing it at one of the relevant deletion attempts, but I'll restrain from further text mentions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swarming the zone. Since you are using my message at your talkpage as a talking point here, I just left this one which seems relevant in this discussion: You've taken me to ANI using the above message as one of your talking points, without answering it and having a reasonable conversation? More time sinking of both the topic and, apparently, of editors who question your WikiHatcheding of the topic. With your hundreds of edits and deletions and deletion attempts over the last two days or so you seem to be trying to guarantee that your edits stand using swarming-the-zone tactics. Not the way most Wikipedians operate, although I've seen it done a couple times (not many, literally once or maybe twice over the years, this tactic is actually fairly rare on Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has admitted by Randy Kryn above, they have now claimed on my talk page that my edits are not done in good faith. Veverve (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admitted (Jesus Christ on a pogo stick). As I said, you have chopped into the topic with obviously keepable redirect deletion attempts (dozens), have nominated easily kept images (dozens), and taken a WikiHatchet to the main articles of the topic. All in two deays (an accidental combo of 'days' and 'delays', but seems to fit). You are probably operating in good faith as you see it, and good faith has to assume that you are flooding-the-zone in good faith, which I guess is a thing, but not the way I've seen done before to this extent. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked 72 hours for edit warring to restore unsourced content. Also, there seem to be some issues related to article ownership and assuming bad faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh come on! Really? EEng 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randy Kryn shouldn't have broken the 3RR, but, equally, it would have been nice to add "citation needed" tags before progressing to wholesale removal of material. Those tags exist precisely to avoid this sort of blow out.
    In discussion elsewhere, some of the points removed have proven easy to source, even for someone - like me - who knows nothing about the topic. Furius (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The deletions were precipitate and ill-considered, and RK didn't break 3RR. EEng 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I have a different take. That was a whole lot of (mostly speculative looking) content to be completely unsourced. Frankly a lot of it has the tone of meandering WP:Original research, and to the extent that some of it can be supported by RS, the WP:ONUS t support inclusion with sourcing before restoring is on the supporting party. Was there a slower, potentially more diplomatic approach to these removals? Yes, I suppose. But neither was Veverve's approach out of process, and once the removals were made the edit warring to restore such a massive amount of unsourced content definitely was inappropriate. And Randy is plenty experienced enough in the sourcing standards (and the limitations one has to respect when editing on esoteric subjects one has a personal passion for) to know that--and I've seen them reminded about crossing that line previously. NPR could have done a warning here, but considering the WP:OWN / "I can't believe you took a hatchet to our beautiful work!" mentality on display in this very thread, I think it was a necessary reminder at the right moment. In other words: good (if unfortunate) block. SnowRise let's rap 08:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are supposed to be preventative, and if some other preventative will do the job, then that's what should be used. I'm sure a firm reminder from 3rd parties would have done the trick. EEng 17:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This type of behaviour regularly sees new or IP editors being blocked for short periods, I don't see how doing the same for a more seasoned editor is anything but a normal admin action.
    I think it would be good if editors gave warnings to editors they have friendly relationships with when such things come up, but it's not possible to go back in time and do so in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention, they did just receive an edit warring notice for a different dispute mere days ago. Hard to believe a reminder would have done anything when it didn't days ago... Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more suggesting that someone Randy Kryn respects giving them some advice, rather than a template. Anyone can get overheated and blinded to their own mistakes, a friendly word letting you know that you need to step back would likely be better received than a template.
    But yes, at this point it's all a bit late. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with you EEng but that isn't our policy. Wikipedia:Protection policy: Pages are protected when a specific damaging event has been identified that cannot be prevented through other means such as a block. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    other means (plural) such as a block. You seem to be saying blocks are the only means, or the preferred means; surely they're not. Anyway, why are you quoting a policy about when to protect pages, when what we're talking about is when to block an editor? But it's all water under the bridge now. EEng 19:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What does page protection have to do with the discussion? Grandpallama (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven’t looked into the actual events in detail but I’m going to be blunter: not only is this whole situation displaying content ownership tendencies, Randy and his fans’ response to this situation and subsequent block is both immature and screams “I [still] think I’m untouchable”. In other words, not only was the initial response bad, but I personally don’t think Randy et al even got the message: a a 15+ year top 200 veteran should not be getting blocked period, yet here we are Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are some of the sources that Vajzë Blu has added since this ANI and Randy's block. Here is the diff [177], here is the source:[178]. Another diff: [179] and the source produced [180]. Another diff [181] and here is the source: [182]. These are not WP:RS. Goodreads, and personally posted pages are not acceptable sources. So, how are we supposed to maintain quality on Wikipedia when other editors engage in the same kind of behavior? This is disregard for policies and principles. So, Randy gets blocked and someone else takes over who promotes unacceptable sourcing. Lastly, on Randy Kyrn's talk page they say that Discordianism seems to be under attack here right now... [183]---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate: I draw your attention first and formemost to Randy Kyrn's comment quoted above which appears to be a refusal to WP:AGF with me.
    As a sidenote, Vajzë Blu's behaviour as described above is also not so great, so maybe an admin explaining this relatively new user what a RS is would be a good idea. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I obviously already saw that because I left a warning. If people can't behave civilly and assume good faith in some topic area, the community can always choose to topic ban them. However, it would take evidence of extensive disruptive. General sanctions are another possibility for topic areas that have long-running disruptive behavior in them. "Long-running" is months, I guess? I don't know, maybe you could get away with weeks. Don't jump the gun, is my point. Also, the secondary point is that I don't have to be the Discordianism Admin. The community can deal with long-running problems, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate, this is far from the first time Randy Kryn obstructed editing of esoteric topics. See the excessive discussions here (Randy and now-blocked user @.Raven were insisting, against broad consensus, that esoteric woo was not subject to FRINGE and that Wilson et al were mainstream secondary independent sources rather than in-universe fringe adherents). JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate and @JoelleJay. And here is a discussion [184] related to the discussion that JolleJay links to: (Eight-circuit model of consciousness talk page). This discussion takes place on my talk page. I invited Randy over to my talk page to keep the discussion at Eight-circuit model of consciousness from getting bogged down, or something like that. Anyway, this gives you an added view of Randy's views toward sources and maybe other things. I am afraid these views have not changed since that time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add, regarding the first source I mentioned: [185]. It was written by Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, Pvt., USMC (Ret.) on January 23, 1991 (see the bottom of the page). This is not a recognized expert who is able to g3ve a qualified critique of Discordia. Also, to me this seems like rambling about what ever comes to their mind. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steve Quinn: That's actually the introduction to the Fifth Edition written by one of the co-authors: it is certainly reliable as an author's statement about the history and makeup of the book after four previous editions were published. The article, if you would actually read it, has already established that Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst is a pseudonym of Kerry Thornley in the first paragraph, so it is concerning to me that this seems to have escaped your attention. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skyerise:, I find it disconcerting that you are concerned ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where or in what publications is this person discussed regarding their opinions or points of view? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steve Quinn: Quite a few, actually. More than I would care to list here. This person in discussed in all of the academic sources covering Discordianism. Of course, they are actually cited on the article as references or further reading, so I guess you could go count them yourself. Skyerise (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I will take a look. Also, still I think the author of that rambling ramble can be deemed as affiliated. They are saying, "Perhaps the chief difference between the Discordian Society and Sump's outfit is one of style. We got it. They don't." and " We solicit no donations, demand no tithes, charge no admission..." So, he is a part of whatever this is. He is not offering an objective view or any kind of critique. He is one of the boys, so to speak. So, this is concerning to me that you didn't notice that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field." He is one of the authors of the work, which means we are allowed to source things about his creative process - which is what the citation you object to is covering - even if it was self-published on his own website! In the same spirit, Introductions, Prologues and Afterwords to a work may be used support any information about the creative process which they happen to contain. This also falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. Skyerise (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the matter of the initial post, it seems to me that User:Veverve should also have been blocked per WP:BRD. After their (B)old edit was (R)everted, they should have allowed the article to stand while engaging in (D)iscussion on the talk page and allowing editors time to add third-party citations and discuss why copyright really wasn't an issue. They should also be reminded that WP:BURDEN does not include the word "immediately", while WP:IAR is policy and allows an editor to temporarily violate said guideline if in their opinion it will lead to improving Wikipedia. They should also be reminded that WP:BEFORE applies to deletion of article content as well as to article deletion. In point of fact, there are nearly a dozen recent books that directly cover Discordianism in depth, as well as a few journal articles. While they may take a bit of Google Foo to find among the in-universe books, I suspect no effort was made at all, and it should have been. I've added many of these sources to the article, and I'm sure that Randy would have if WP:BRD had been respected. Skyerise (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are so many things wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start. WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Nobody is obligated to follow it. WP:BURDEN, on the other hand, is a policy, and I will block people who don't follow it. WP:IAR is not a "get out jail free" card that you can use to violate policy, and I find it odd that you're demanding that people follow your favorite essays while saying that you don't have to follow literal policy. WP:BEFORE is neither a policy not a guideline. However, it is best practices. If you continually burden the rest of the encyclopedia with poor deletion requests, it's likely the community's patience will fray, and you'll end up topic banned from AfD. But if you're lazy and make one or two bad deletion requests, that's OK. Finally, it has nothing to do with article content. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:PRESERVE, which does say to fix problems rather than delete content. However, if someone chooses to delete unsourced content, you must add citations before restoring it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. WP:BURDEN explicitly says "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." In other words, not only does WP:BURDEN not say that it has to be done before restoring it (i.e. it doesn't say "immediately"), it goes on to suggest tagging and allowing the reverting editor time as an acceptable, if not preferred, option to starting an edit-war when someone reverts a removal. The article in question is not a BLP, and its content while uncited is not in serious doubt or likely to be a source of harm to anyone, so it is not unreasonable to take the details of WP:BURDEN into account and not just cherry-pick that part that lets one editor (ab)use it in such a way as to bully another editor. Skyerise (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but... BURDEN does say: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution. and it says: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. It doesn't say anything about starting an edit war via this process. If someone decides to edit war over this, then they are responsible. So, who is cherry picking? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is choice and it can be avoided. One strategy for avoidance is avoiding ownership isues and trying to keep a preferred version intact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are suggestions that only apply before the first deletion. As the content had already been deleted once, the burden was now squarely shifted to anyone seeking to restore it to provide RS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, the person removing material who then reverts to keep it removed loses the edit war and should be the one blocked. The reason is that any removal is a revert of one or more previous editors who added the content. Thus the removing editor's fourth revert is the the third one after another editor restores the material. RK may have broken 3RR by making a fourth revert, but so did Veverve. Counting things this way used to be common practice and both editors would have been blocked. Intentionally driving or provoking an editor to a block under the assumption that your first edit isn't in itself a revert has in the past been considered a blockable offense, due to the fact that technically both editors have broken 3RR at that point. Skyerise (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh what?! No, removal of any content is not "technically a revert"; if that was true then we could never delete anything from 0RR topics. Sometimes removal can constitute a revert, if the removal is temporally close to and effectively nullifies a specific addition. That is not what happened here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell that to the admins who blocked me during the previous decade using exactly that argument, which was done several times, until I internalized it and always count my initial removals as a revert; this does not apply to additions. This is not a new thing I am making up, it's an old one that has been neglected and forgotten. Any removal is necessarily a revert. It takes two to tango, and Veverve was as much in the wrong as Randy. Skyerise (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if Veverve actually did revert as many times as Randy, their actions are decidedly backed by policy while Randy's are not.
    And I don't see anywhere in your most recent edit warring blocks that an admin has said your removal of material, well after it was added, constituted a revert. Instead I see you getting blocked for the combination of incivility, harassment, fringe canvassing, and filing spurious SPIs, while edit warring. And remember that EW is not defined only as 4 reverts in 24 hours, so being blocked for edit warring after <4 reverts/day does not mean some other edit is being "counted" as a revert. JoelleJay (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did say last decade. I am specifically talking about the blocks in 2013, 2014, and 2015. At least two of them counted a first removal as a revert. You'd have to find the actual 3RR reports to verify that, but I assure you that it is true. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but the above is somewhat convoluted. Trying to change the focus on who made what edit and then saying one editor intentionally provoked or drove another editor to a block is deflecting responsibly here. Also, accusing another editor of intentionally leading another into an edit war is not AGF. I know that is what you intend by posting that. So, most likely what you have, is two editors with two different editing standards. One edits according to P & G and the other is much less concerned with P & G. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bottom line is: it takes two to tango and they both should have been blocked. An editor may be deemed to have edit-warred even if they have not technically crossed 3RR, especially when multiple articles are involved. Consideration should be taken as to what's going on across multiple articles, and nominating more than a dozen redirects for deletion after gutting an article of the material that supports the redirects is in my opinion edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing poorly-sourced dubious material from multiple pages is not edit-warring, even when someone reverts three times per page. Reinserting that material without improving the sourcing is tendentious and is definitionally edit warring at four reverts, and will frequently be considered EW even before that. JoelleJay (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply wrong. 3RR is very clear that edit-warring is disruptive editing, and it applies even when the editor in question is technically "right" - it's a simple count, not a judgment call: Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This again? Randy Kryn tendentiously disrupted removal of trivia/non-reliably sourced content at another Robert Anton Wilson-adjacent page last year. I think @Snow Rise and @Steve Quinn were also involved in that one. Are we approaching a need for a t-ban from esoteric stuff? JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, I have been thinking about that same thing that happened last year. It is deja vu all over again. I think a t-ban is reasonable given the current circumstances---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • All that stuff aside (and that's where it should be), and I'll get back to reading it more in-depth and responding later, the major problem here comes across from reading Skyerise's point of view. Seems there are two different understandings of BRD among Wikipedians. I would have hoped that, given the circumstances and my experience here, that people would have also given me some of that "assume good faith" business, and trust that my judgement and reasoning contained the "other side of the coin" (which I'll also get into above later). What we should assume is that many Wikipedians, myself included, understand the BRD process to be 1) a bold edit (or edit run) made, 2) then reverted, 3) well, maybe a second revert if you think you know your stuff, etc., that the talk page discussion should begin when asked for. Lots of editors use BRD. It's all over the place. How many editors have been blocked or banned for getting into what an administrator perceived as a one-sided bad-hat "edit war" and using the ban stick like a baton, when assuming good faith might tell them something different if deeply researched. I will bet Elon Musk's money that a huge percentage of Wikipedians trust BRD as the letter of the law and not just an essay. Maybe we should make clear to everyone that BRD no longer should be cited, as it really has no meaning in preventing an "edit war" if two editors understand it, or think they understand it, differently. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the first time I've ever seen anyone state that not following BRD is a blockable offense. WP:BRD is quite clear in it's first paragraph that it's optional and not mandatory. It's good advise and I would follow it as 'best behaviour', but unfortunately it's not enforceable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then you are still waiting. I did not say that not following BRD is a blockable offense. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Behavior of Qaqaamba

    Hi admins, I have warned User:Qaqaamba a couple of times not to leave BS messages on my talk page, but to no avail. He has been edit warring and reverting my edits to the Khona article. I only reverted his edits once; he has reverted my edits three times in less than 24 hours and has broken the WP:3RR rule.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Versace1608 doesn't appear to want to conform to the encyclopedia's community guidelines regarding assuming good faith, being polite nor working together. It also appears the user is presumably intentionally provoking editors with the aim to edit war as per previous ANI notice on user's talk page in March, 2024.

    1. The user reverted my edit at Khona over the mere difference of words "sounds" over "influences". Although my edit was based off both actual quote as well as context [186] furthermore stipulated "influences" exactly as per reference/ citation.
    2. I restored the previous version inclusive of comprehensive and elaborative edit summary even explaining where the quoted words could be found in the article [187]. I proceeded to talk on the user's page via leaving a "test editing" note [188]. The user did a manual revert and stipulated " don't leave this crappy note on my talk page" [189] (I did not see it, at this point).
    3. The user proceeded to revert the edit again, without talking and completely ignoring edit summary explanation as well as what's stipulated in the citation regarding actual quote and context. [190]
    4. At this point I assumed possible vandalism/ disruptive editing and restored the previous version once again [191] . I proceeded to talk on the user's page once again via [192] . The user manually reverted it. The user did in fact not disrupt Khona again. However the user left this note in the revert which is a presumed threat and I reckon not a polite way to engage with editors : "can tyou fucking stop leaving messages on my talk page. this is the last time i am going to tell you this"[193].
    5. The user appears to be proceeding to further instigate more edit wars , at current ([194] ) completely ignoring article's context etc.


    The user needs to understand that edits could be worked on together as well as discussed via talk pages , not edit warring and the fact that impolite / vulgar threats and inappropriate edit summaries is not acceptable communication between editors. Qaqaamba (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another incident where Versace1608, engages in/ uses foul language to communicate over at Khona's Talk page [195]. Qaqaamba (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you have have grabbed the wrong diff. Was this the diff you meant? If so, while it's definitely discouraged, I don't think [you] had the balls to leave bullshit messages on my talk page rises to the level of sanction. In point 4 above, you pointed out that you were asked to stop posting on their talk page, which is consistent with WP:NOBAN. You then did so four times. Unless required to give a notification (such as the fourth post you made, an ANI notification) then you should stay off their talk page. I assume you won't do it again, so no administrative action is needed unless you prove me wrong.
    On the other side of things, Qaqaamba seems to be right in their point 1: the source does explicitly say "influences", and Qaqaamba was right to take it to the talk page. However, the two reverts they made don't exceed the WP:3RR bright line, and they seem to have stopped reverting, so likewise, nothing there seems to require administrator intervention unless an edit war continues.
    While tempers are short, both parties seem to be contributing in good faith and have stopped any disruption. I'd suggest both editors take a short wikibreak, go do something satisfying, and come back tomorrow to discuss on the article talk if still interested. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Foul language cannot be tolerated whether it's "your" talk page or not. "Hi admins, I have warned User:Qaqaamba a couple of times not to leave BS messages on my talk page..." was it necessary to add the abbreviation "BS" even on ANI? And the edit summary on this diff?? I'm sorry but it is low coming from an experienced editor with so much perms and over 36,000 edits. dxneo (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck: I don't have anything else to say to Qaqaamba. He was right for stating that the cited source explicitly said "West African influences" but wrong for replacing "house" with "Afro house". He doesn't have a source that labels the song as "Afro house". If he does, let him cite it here; I challenge him to do so. On the article's talk page, he said "Afropop" isn't a genre simply because "Afropop" redirects to African popular music. By his logic, pop music shouldn't be a genre and said article should be redirected to popular music. For your info Qaqaamba, Afropop is a music genre and if an article is created for the genre, it will be titled Afro pop music (or Afropop music). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace1608 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This notice board is specifically intended to reach consensus for editors' behavioural problems. One should make use of WP:Talk pages ([[196]]) WP:3O, WP: DR in regards to what you're (Versace 1608) pertaining towards above. Qaqaamba (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dxneo Foul language cannot be tolerated That is not my understanding. There's a certain editor, I forget who, who was well known for telling people to not post on his talk page with the edit summary, "Fuck off". Consensus was that, while not necessary, it also was not actionable. I'm working on an essay that explains that, while discouraged, swearing is not inherently forbidden by Wikipedia. Of course, I could be mistaken; we'll see what others say.
    @Versace1608 I wouldn't know about that; I'm not a music editor, and ANI isn't for content disputes. All I'm saying is that both of you seem to want to improve the encyclopedia, nobody has done anything egregiously wrong in my opinion, and either talking it out or (as you stated you intend to do) disengaging seem like the best paths forward. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dxneo: Like User:DollysOnMyMind, another South African editor, you seem to be interested in my edit count. I don't know how this discussion concerns you and why you feel the need to mention my edit count here.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 18:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qaqaamba: Your response here is the main reason why I will not engage you further. I have better things to do with my time. I challenged you to cite a reliable source that labels "Khona" as Afro house and you have failed to do so. You instead want to tell me what this discussion ought to be about. Moving forward, I will not be creating anymore South African-related articles on Wikipedia. The few SA-related articles that I have created ("Khona", Toya Delazy, Due Drop, Phendula, etc) are enough at this point. I can focus my time doing something more constructive since it seems like some of you SA folks on here are hellbent on engaging in edit warring and focusing on trivial matter.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 19:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Versace1608:, User @Swatjester: was already kind enough to let you know that There's no reason to bring up another editor's nationality on Personal attacks by User: Versace1608, and you're still doing the same thing. You're pinging me into this discussion (that has nothing to do with me in any way) pointing out how this other editor you're having an edit conflict with has the same nationality as me. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not wading into the content dispute over whatever y'all are arguing about in the article, but

    • @Qaqaamba: if a user asks you to refrain from editing their user talk page, it's generally expected that you will do so. See WP:USERTALKSTOP.
    • @Versace1608: it is generally expected that users will be open to communication and collaboration on their user talk pages. While you can request another editor refrain from further editing of your talk page, responding so dismissively is not a good look either. Civility is policy and your responses to Qaqaamba are facially uncivil. Didn't I just warn you a week ago about civility around South Africa-area content areas? I would advise you not to let this continue to be a recurring problem. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough, the scope of WP:USERTALKSTOP is being discussed right now at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution#talk with the other editor at their user talk page in conduct disputes contradicts WP:NOBAN. Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swatjester: Qaqaamba did not leave a friendly message on my talk page. He left multiple warnings on my talk page, accusing me of engaging in edit warring when he was in fact the one doing so. He reverted my edit three times in less than 24 hours. I only made one revert to one of his revisions. Maybe he thought that I was a newbie here and wouldn't revert the edits he left on my talk page. I don't know how many times I have to tell him to refrain from posting BS messages on my talk page. I had to open this discussion before he stopped posting on my talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2011 and this is my first time I am quite this active at ANI.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 04:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Swatjester & @Mackensen
    1. It appears Versace 1608 refuses to talk any further regarding the/my contributions although an elaborate discussion proposal/ explanation was made prior to, additionally cited sources. (Talk:Khona).
    2. It appears the editor is mainly concerned with being WP: Uncivil and WP: Personal attacks, instead of working together. I was unaware that the article Khona was created by Versace 1608 which could unfortunately be a presumed further indication of WP:OWN , in view of the fact that my edit(s) was/ were somewhat a clear improvement. In my opinion, I find it odd that the user apparently regards crude language, personal attacks ( "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases" - Wikipedia:No personal attacks) and implied threats in addition disruptive-editing like reverts/edits without talking/ legitimized edit summaries (about the edits/ article and not personal attacks on even specifically article's talk pages [197] as " friendly" opposed to my and mere /literal and "only" template warn and note, messages with the intention of the refinement and well-running of the article. I have never ever revealed my gender nor nationality. However the editor is presumably assuming and apparently fixating on that, too.
    Qaqaamba (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears Versace 1608 has further, comes across as, disrupted other articles too "the afro fusion article talks about a genre supposedly created in South Africa" which implies ongoing WP:Personal attacks and implicit, innuendo or condescending WP:Hate Speech/WP:HATEDISRUPT - (1), (2).
    Qaqaamba (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qaqaamba I'm worried that you may be overreaching here. There's no diff, so I don't know the context, but that quote just seems to say, "I don't agree, but others think X." I don't see any personal attacks, much less hate speech. Editors are allowed to disagree on the origins of particular genres. They're even allowed to refuse to discuss it, as long as they don't keep trying to insert their belief into an article. The editing I have seen from Versace on Khona over the last two days has been both civil and according to policy. They are well within their rights to demand a source for the inclusion of a new genre; see WP:GENREWARRIOR.
    @Versace1608 I agree that you're not doing yourself any favors by mentioning others' nationalities. Also, while I maintain that you're allowed to use profanity in the way you have been, you may want to consider that avoiding it (at least insofar as you deal with Qaqaamba) will make it easier for other editors to dismiss their complaints against you re: civility. I roll my eyes at this, but apparently that includes abbreviations such as "BS". I may think it's silly, but Qaqaamba does not, and WP:CIV is more about how we impact other editors than how we think they should be impacted.
    To both, it seems to me that my urging to disengage wasn't well received. What does an ideal outcome look like to you? At first I thought it was the resolution of a content dispute, but now I'm wondering if the desired outcome is to not have to interact with the other editor again. If that's the case, would a voluntary 2-way WP:IBAN work? I understand that each thinks this will leave the article in a "wrong" state, but if that's true, someone will correct it eventually, and there's no urgency here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EducatedRedneck
    • the Khona article is in the current state as per my last edit as the fact was that it was "influences" and not "sounds" additionally, I provided a source. Special:Diff/1217723548 Thereafter Versace 1608 proceeded to disrupt another article (Burna Boy) by removing specifically "a South African genre" from the infobox, sources as well as de-linking it the article.
    Qaqaamba (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello admins @Swatjester & @Mackensen
    Editor Versace1608 in addition to the above, is what appears to be insisting on introducing / retaining incorrect information in the encyclopedia specifically around South African content. Versace1608 is currently attempting to WP:CENSOR at Talk:Burna Boy in regards to having removed (twice) and not linking a musical style to a Nigerian musicians's article because the genre is "South African"/ " a South African genre." Qaqaamba (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs:
    • "this particular genre isn't the kind of music Burma boy makes; Burma boy's music only shares the same title with this particular genre. including it in this article is a mistake" Special:Diff/1218025910
    • "removed wiki linked per my notes left on talk page" Special:Diff/1218028850
    • "removed per note on my talk page; this needs to be discussed on TP; dont add it back here until a resolution is made either by us or admins" Special:Diff/1218029184
    • "By linking Afrofusion, you are giving readers the impression that Burna Boy makes the kind of music the article describes. This isn't factual and completely false. Burna Boy's music only shares the same title with the South African music genre, nothing more. If you have any objections to what I just said, you can leave a response here. If we are unable to resolve this amongst ourselves, I will open a case at WP:DRN. I'm confident admins will side with me in the end."Special:Diff/1218028195
    • " Let's get back to reality. Can you accept that the South African genre, which the Afrofusion article is about, isn't the style of music Burna Boy creates? Do you accept this fact? By wikilinking Afro-fusion within the Burna Boy article , you are misleading readers into thinking that the South African genre is the style of music Burna Boy does. For your info, Burna Boy makes Afrobeats music. He may denied that he does but reliable secondary sources have labeled his music as Afrobeats. Information in secondary sources are more credible than info in primary sources."Special:Diff/1218085392
    • "Are you going to answer my question? Do you accept that the South African genre, which the "Afro fusion" article is about, isn't the style of music Burna Boy creates? Stop beating around the bush and going off topic. This discussion is about the wikilinking of "Afro fusion" within the Burna Boy article. Critics have classified Burna Boy's music as Afrobeats, regardless of what he personally labels it."Special:Diff/1218140158
    Qaqaamba (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any removal of content by Versace1608 on Talk:Burna Boy. I see a talk page discussion *about* the removal of content from the article, which is how things are supposed to work. This is a content dispute. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Versace1608 removed as well as delinked specifically South African-area content following this section at ANI, from the Nigerian artist Burna Boy, article and spoke about it after I re-added it and he removed it once again. ([198])
    • Versace1608 has coincidentally nominated the "South African genre" afrofusion article which I created and have been expanding for deletion because as per above "Do you accept that the South African genre, which the "Afro fusion" article is about, isn't the style of music Burna Boy creates?" ( [199]) and as it appears because, I did not respond. ([200])
    • It appears Versace1608 is committed to introducing/retaining incorrect as well as misleading information in the encyclopedia as per inititally refusing to have accepted that "West African influences" ≠ "West African sounds" Special:Diff/1217547861, that a South African duo's song genre was/is a South African genre (Afrohouse), [Talk:Khona] and currently that Afro fusion is a fusion genre/hypernym originating in South Africa via "Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)"
    • All of the above appears to be a combination of intentional WP:EW, WP:GENREWAR, UN - WP:CIV as well as WP:PA and are indicative of behavioural problems over and above, the edits.
    Qaqaamba (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qaqaamba I think you need to drop this issue on ANI. As Swat Jester said, this is a content dispute. I looked through the links you provided, and I saw a content dispute. I did not see any incivility, personal attacks, and you've provided no evidence for edit warring. I have seen you WP:ABF by claiming intentional misdoing. Such unevidenced accusations ARE considered WP:ASPERSIONS. This is starting to look like you trying to get someone blocked because they disagree with you. Versace has stated their intent to seek dispute resolution if you two can't come to an agreement. That's exactly how it should work. If you feel so strongly about afro-fusion that someone being wrong on the internet feels like a personal attack, you probably should find another topic to edit. If you keep pushing this without solid evidence, I expect there will be a WP:BOOMERANG in your future. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am evading a block, sorry, block me and kindly go through my request

    ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! (User:Adishere) - I was blocked as a not so matured editor, who created this account to do some small constructive edits and today has edit count of little less than 4000. (User:ExclusiveEditor/Unblock Request,Confession) - User:ExclusiveEditor(talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @ExclusiveEditor Why did you evade your block and decide to perform sockpuppetry? That's just going to bring you more consequences. On your old account, you should have taken the standard offer and waited out your block for six months, then had an unblock request. Now this won't be good for you. Let's see what the admins will say. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been a significant time from the block and socking to now as far as I can tell. I'm not immediately inclined to hold a procedural error against them. Acroterion (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I'm not sure, but this is just my opinion. It's fine to hear the others say their thoughts. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. If they aren't using accounts to make disruptive edits anymore, than there's no need for a block. Noah, AATalk 13:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that I cannot reply for next six hours due to some reason. ExclusiveEditor [[ User talk:ExclusiveEditor|Notify Me!]] 22:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've indeffed the user as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I just read through the unblock request and it looks like they know what they did wrong Maestrofin (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably the correct decision from a procedural standpoint, but I get the sense that ExclusiveEditor genuinely intends to be a productive editor and has matured in the years since he was originally indeffed. I'd support allowing him to return to editing without requiring him to go through the prescribed six-month waiting period of the standard offer. We're a website, not a parole board. We're allowed to bend the rules once in a while. Kurtis (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any reason why the original account can't be unblocked, based on the pretty reasonable request they linked. The sock account would be permissible if properly attributed, once that's done. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This individual created the sock account shortly after the main account was indef blocked. And they continued to edit with his sock account up until yesterday. I also don't see current block appeal anywhere. They knew the block appeal template and decided against using it. It's hard to take their words seriously when they continue to violate the sockpuppetry policy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It’s been like three years Maestrofin (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @OhanaUnited: Their unblock request is located here. Kurtis (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any unblock at this stage - WP:STANDARD should apply. Please wait 6 months without socking. GiantSnowman 14:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request: ExclusiveEditor

    I'm adding a separate subheader to draw more attention to this unblock request. While I doubt it'll gather consensus in EE's favor, there seems to be enough disagreement that I'd at least like to hear a few additional voices chiming in before this discussion is archived automatically. Kurtis (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing Indian caste sockpuppet edit war

    Hi. I don't mean to bother anyone but could someone please take a look into the ongoing edit war of Indian caste-related articles?

    I've been constantly notified on my talk page about sockpuppet investigations of various users, who are reported by other socks. Multiple investigations have been closed with socks indef blocked, but that seems to have no result, as other accounts are being created as old ones are being blocked.

    I would really appreciate it if someone can look into this issue, and possibly stop it, once and for all. Again, thank you.

    '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The area is already under WP:GSCASTE, don't think we can escalate it any further. Maybe consider requesting increased protection for the most affected articles. Liu1126 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'll look into GSCASTE and request protection for some articles. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pirate dzns

    E/C for a week. The named account hasn't edited for a few days but it's clear the IP is the same editor. I'll warn but so we don't have to play whack an IP Star Mississippi 15:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Could an admin please intervene at KamilaKaimla? User:Pirate dzns has been edit-warring both logged in and logged-out to add unsourced content, despite several warnings at their user talk.Wikishovel (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you meant Kaimla, and also agree their editing behavior is problematic. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Autocorrect corrected above, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Crusading movement

    This article has passed GA, and recently passed an extensive MILHIST A-Class Review. It is now at FAC.

    There is one editor reviewing who I have previous editing conflicts with. The necessitated coming to ANI, with the adjudication being we have should stay out of each others way. I have followed this advice. However, the editor in question is now reviewing my nomination.

    The editor in question has a typical modus operandi, they do not work in a consensual way, instead adopt a relentless, pedantic and often spurious campaign on articles, either via editing or tagging. This method is successful for them because eventually all other editors give up because life is too short.

    This is the approach adopted for this review. Considering this has just ACR they have suggested putting it back to GAR, where they will no doubt attempt to gut the article of all the good work that has gone into it. It is worth noting that this is a repeated pattern of behaviour when considering sanctions. FYI @Johnbod:Jenhawk777— Preceding unsigned comment added by Norfolkbigfish (talk • contribs) 03:43, 7 April 2024

    Who is this mystery editor? How can we review the interactions between you and them if we don't know who they are - and you don't appear to have notified anyone of this discussion (and no pings don't count).Nigel Ish (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor being reported is Borsoka and they were notified here. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I immediately put the template on the Talk Page of Borsoka, so yes they have been notified Nigel Ish Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to sign the initial post, apologies. Pinging @Johnbod: and @Jenhawk777: in case they didn't get it last time. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is the comment/dispute here, you are referring to? And can you show some diffs for the repeated pattern of behaviour? Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Norfolkbigfish I am glad to see you standing up for yourself and your excellent article here in this forum. I have complete faith in the intelligence and fairness of WP admins. Truth will out. I have attempted to counter some of Borsoka's general claims on Crusading movement, but responses are evasive, and they never admit to error no matter how sufficient the evidence. IMO, they do not demonstrate good faith, offer no encouraging words for work well done, and seem to advocate the reassessment of every GA they run across. I have had some of these same issues with Borsoka over at History of Christianity, and have been banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to keep them away from anything I work on. I wish there was such a thing as a block, but hopefully this will work as well. I certainly do add my testimony to yours of Borsoka's problematic approach. I wish you good luck. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As is said above, you or Norfolkbigfish will need to give some diffs evidencing what you are complaining about. I can't see anyone trawling that FAC trying to work out what the problem is. DeCausa (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good one to start with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Crusading_movement/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=1217656444 - prompted by a disagreement with another editor they immediately switch to hyperbole, opposition and indiactes an intention to go to GAR. Opposition is fine because I knew they were always going to oppose, but the suggest that a article so recenntly successful at A-Class review wasn't GA? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just from that diff, I can't see a problem. They're giving their opinion that it shouldn't have been made GA. If you are saying that they are only saying that in bad faith because of a previous dispute (is that what you are saying?) then what's the evidence for that? DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why this has been escalated to ANI with only superficial discussion on the nomonation and no discussion, as far as I can see, on any other FA-related talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is one of the worst FACs I have ever read although I have made several FAC reviews. My detailed comments can be read here. I assume one of the two cases mentioned by Norfolkbigfish above can be read in two archives here and here, and the other case can be read here. Before opposing the FAC, I sought advice at the relevant wikiproject's talk page: [201]. Three experienced editors adviced that an article that contains original research, filled with blatant plagiarism, etc is to be failed: [202], [203], [204]. Even now, I made a final attempt to review the article, but I concluded that I cannot find a single section that do not contain original research, copyvio or close paraphrasing ([205]). And I do not want to mention the problems with its sources and structure. Borsoka (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are my "evasive responses" to Jenhawk777's interesting remarks: [206]. Borsoka (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think GAR is necessary because the article does not meet basic GA criteria either. Borsoka (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Borska I am out of town at a conference for the entire week. I was working on responses to you and am now unable to take the time needed. If this is still open when I am able to come up for air I will respond then. I don’t think you have proven your case. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps because I did not want to prove my case. I only linked my responses that you qualified "evasive". Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Skimming through the FAC comments, I'm not seeing anything actually problematic, and looking through the AN/ANI archives I am unable to find any sanction preventing Borsoka from interacting with Norfolkbigfish. The closest I can get to is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Crusades, where an IBAN against Borsoka was discussed, but the proposed ban would have lapsed several years ago and at any rate the discussion was never formally closed and no such restriction appears to have been logged. I agree with AirshipJungleman: it's unclear why this needed to be brought to ANI Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, Caeciliusinhorto, I do think there are some problems with Borsoka's combative style; I have previously attemmpted to give him friendly advice per this essay, but he did not take it that well. I have also noticed that he tends to overfixate on article quality—I have seen these overexaggerated demands (stop FAC! strip A-class! strip GA!) before. I don't really understand why he needed to consult WT:FAC to ask how opposes work, either. That said, escalating to this noticeboard almost at the drop of a hat is not very collaborative from Norfolkbigfish either. In this case, I would recommend that one editor drop the stick and the other stop climbing the Reichstag with a funny costume. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29: could you add some diffs about my aggressive behaviour? As I already mentioned you before I always communicate with people in the same style that they use when communicating with me. Borsoka (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, by which you mean that you never attempt to talk with more civility than the other person. Take this very recent comment—was it really necessary? Or did you just want the last word? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is an example of aggressivenes, you are right, I am extremly aggressive. In some cases, I attempt to talk with more civility than the other person. For instance, read this discussion: I am accused of PoV pushing, aggressiveness, and I am only asking for diffs. :) Borsoka (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one am I @AirshipJungleman29, if the latter I am afraid I don't understand the analogy? :-) Always ready to compromise and take your advice onboard. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The former. The latter refers to the maxim Borsoka apparently has apparently taken the reverse of to heart (see their userpage). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is @Caeciliusinhorto, @AirshipJungleman29 is that this reviewer has history of putting articles he doesn't like up for GAR and the sabotaging that GAR see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusader_states/GA3
    They have a POV that will push, individually and without consensus, and they will continue to push this until all reasonable editors lose the will to live.
    The idea that the article is as poor as represented is fanciful, seeing as it only recently passed A-Class, and fairly recently passed GA. This was raised solely to prevent this article going down the same route.
    They are perfectly within their right to Oppose this FAC, and in good faith I am working through some of the detailed comments. What they arn't entitled to do, and what it appears to be the case, is push their own POV without consensus. That is what will happen if this isn't prevented. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Norfolkbigfish: could you inform me (with diffs) about the PoV I am pushing during this review and I was pushing during the GAR you mentioned above? Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not NBF, but I think your expectations for weighting and sourcing are perhaps too prescriptive for someone who has very definite ideas on what is right and what is wrong. It almost helps when you are not totally familiar with the subject—your review of Genghis Khan was excellent because, I suspect, you were familiar but not an expert on the topic. The same for your sadly-incomplete review of Charlemagne. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not an expert on any topics of history. Those "who has very definite ideas on what is right and what is wrong" are called PoV pushers. I do not have such ideas. I am still waiting for differences proving my PoV pushing and unilaterally aggressive behaviour. Borsoka (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would disagree with both "I am not an expert on any topics of history" and "Those "who has very definite ideas on what is right and what is wrong" are called PoV pushers", mostly because having definite ideas on what is right and wrong marks you out as a historian ;) ! Historians having points of view, especially on higher-level questions of weighting historiographical viewpoints, is not a bad thing, but you do generally take a "my way or the highway"-type approach (whether that is at Middle Ages, History of Christianity, Post-classical history, here at Crusading movement, or elsewhere—note the similarities between the topics? try telling me again you're not an expert) For your combative approach, I provided an example above—was this comment really necessary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a historian and I do not have definite ideas what is right and wrong. I indeed have access to much more sources than average reviewers have, so I can easily check statements from articles. Sorry, but I do not like (or I could even say that I hate) original research and PoV pushing because we are not here to spread our ideas. Our community is not a platform for people who want to share their own thoughts or seize WP credentials by copying text from reliable sources (even if during my first years in WP I committed both deadly sins). Our common purpose is to build an encyclopedia summarizing reliable sources without bias. We should accept that there are editors who are unable to complete this task. Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Norfolkbigfish has a point. While Borsoka has been very kind to me in the past in providing extremely helpful and informed reviews,there is a history of bludgeoning articles with a specific POV, using a mis-characterization of WP:DUE. IOW, two editors I respect, but in this instance siding with Fish. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ceoil: could you inform me (with diffs) about the PoVs that I am pushing. By now, I have become extremly curious. Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure[207]. Ceoil (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a diff and not evidence for PoV pushing. It demonstrates that I rewrote Middle Ages because it was filled with original research, marginal facts, and contained almost no information of the medieval history of large regions of Europe. For further details, I refer to the archives here and here: you can check that I waited for days or even weeks before each edit - do you think that PoV pushers are able to wait even for hours before editing? However, if you (Ceoil and Norfolkbigfish) think that I am convinced that Crusading movement should be rewritten your are right. For my reasons, I refer to my FAC review. Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "It demonstrates that I rewrote [forced my POV] Middle Ages [against the judgement and wishes of everybody else commenting over and over on the talk page, because I just will not listen and am most determined to wear everybody else down, at all costs.]. A major problem here is your EXTREMELY off-putting approach, and it pains me that you have so much knowledge and are such a great writer, but cannot meet people even half way.. Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you refer to this discussion between us? Here you are accusing me of bludgeoing after you sharply criticised a quote from the article's original text believing that it was written by me. I do not remember other references to bludgeoing. Borsoka (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am just thinking how I have been able to survive nearly 90 GANs, exactly 6 FACs, and support the promotion of 30 FACs if my approach is EXTREMELY off-putting? Could you explain me? Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Borsoka it is not sufficient to claim that an article has problems. You need to back your assertions up. If you're claiming a source is misrepresented, what does it actually say? If you claim that a viewpoint is marginal, you need to provide sources that present the mainstream view. If you're claiming an article is plagiarised or a copyright violation, you need to show where the text came from. It is not sufficient to vaguely wave at a set of criteria and assert that they're not met. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. Could you cite cases when I did not explicitly mark plagiarism, or did not refer to sources presenting mainstream views? Borsoka (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "it pains me that you have so much knowledge and are such a great writer, but cannot meet people even half way" the nub of the matter, really. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Borsoka, look. I've already praised you here, and said below that this shouldn't be at AN/I. I have no interest in again litigating the history of Middle Ages article (haha). Dunno, maybe you have a blind spot, but your approach and the obnoxious manner in how you treated Ealdgyth is among the most unpleasant tales I have from my 18 year history on wiki. Lets leave it at that. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for mentioning that you are not neutral (although you emphasised the opposite above). I did not treat Ealdgyth in any way. After placing my first tags in the article (without knowing who are responsible for it), Ealdgyth stated "Im not available to deal with this tagging campaign and having watched a similar attack at crusades, I’m not going to hang around to watch someone tear the article apart while never providing any sources for the assertions being made. Not worth the aggravation". Sincerely, after completing the review of the article, I am not surprised that the main contributor to the article chose to withdraw. I think the Middle Ages article itself is one of the most unpleasant tales in WP history. Borsoka (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Grand and whatever way you want to paint it - Im probably going to die in the next 30 years and really dont want to spend that time going back and forth with an immovable object. Re unpleasant; at least we agree on one thing. Ceoil (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems pretty clear to me that this Norfolkbigfish is merely using ANI to retaliate against Borsoka, who, ten minutes before this was filed, raised the nomination at WT:FAC for advice regarding the issues they claimed to have found. In a neutral manner, discussing the article, not the nominator. Whereas I think a—not unreasonable—interpretation of this complaint is as an attempt to get Borsoka taken out of the game. ——Serial Number 54129 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your half right. I agree this should't be here. Ceoil (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't even aware that this had been raised at WT:FAC, it is not a page I follow or have even visited before. This was raised here to get some mediation after Borsoka, in a disagreement with a third editor massively escalated his criticism of the article mid review. He has previous of nominating articles at GAR and then involving himself in the review to ensure it fails, even thogh the reviewer wanted to pass it. I don't want Borsoka taken out of the game as you put it. I want to improve what is an gnarly but interesting and important aricle in a consensual way. If Borsoka is happy to work in a consensual manner I am sure there is welcome value in that. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. ——Serial Number 54129 14:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Norfolkbigfish should improve their editing skills in shorter, less comprehensive articles before returning to this article that they have been editing for years. If they ping me, I will always glady and without bias review their work. Borsoka (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, I mistyped minutes for hours. Silly me. And I think it was a rather reasonable post; playing the ball, not the man, always lowers the temperature—or at least should do. The same can't usually the case for ANI. ——Serial Number 54129 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing is odd. I did not know if I had to wait until the article is totally rewritten, or I can quickly oppose. Sorry, but I am mainly unable to understand WP's procedural rules. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough. I guess I had assumed you would know you could quickly oppose, but your record shows you haven't, so apologies for the implication. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been pinged here, but I'm away on holiday for over a week & won't be able to contribute (I think), but I had noticed B's drone attack. I agree with others above about B's pattern of behaviour. Here he doesn't seem to edit the article himself, just scupper the GA, plus the FAC. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not surprised that Johnbod speaks of "my drone attack". He used to be a major contributor to Middle Ages, and also one of its three nominators. As it has been mentioned several times, I rewrote the article. He wanted to keep the status quo. Just for the records, the crusading movement failed as a FAC, I opened its GAR, and editors who are more experienced than myself are currently investigating whether it should be deleted for plagiarism. An other article written by Norfolkbigfish and promoted as FA by Johnbod would likely also be investigated from copyright perspective. For further details I refer to the GAR page [208], [209], [210]. Borsoka (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for the records: I received the following message from Norfolkbigfish: "Borsoka-I appreciate, as you say, the chance to clear the article, thank you for that. Will work through this from the top, line by line, and ping you when complete." [211]. Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extreme Personal Attack by User:Rohitlaxmaan

    The user @User:Rohitlaxmaan, is using extreme offencive language against me as I proposed a deletion request of his created article. He used Hindi language. I will request appropriate actions against him.

    Here is the log where he attacked me using extreme offencive language against me. Grabup (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    <Gross abuse redacted> Rohitlaxmaan (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - I think they are at least WP:NOTHERE and are promising to Sock, so I don't think that they should be allowed to edit here - and the comments probably warrant rev-deletion.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another account @Rohitlaxman, and he said in hindi that “ I have unlimited email ids, block me I will create another account. Grabup (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both blocked. Acroterion (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. Grabup (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he will return to Wikipedia again with a new Id. Grabup (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. Keep your eyes open and let us know if you see them. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Drewpoopoo4 user issue

    Block Drewpoopoo4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Disruptive editing. Sockpuppetry. 2600:1002:B010:305:D948:8131:9D95:1C37 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible sock of Drew poos on chairs lol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 2600:1002:B010:305:D948:8131:9D95:1C37 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Block has been done by an administrator, please check possible sleepers and tag sockpuppets. Tag Drewpoopoo4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Drew poos on chairs lol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and tag Drew poos on chairs lol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppeteer. 2600:1002:B010:305:D948:8131:9D95:1C37 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Drewpoopoo4 has already been blocked by Ingenuity after I reported to AIV. Additionally DrewPavlou1999 seems to be the master puppet, I already reported to UAA because of possible COI/impersonation edits on Drew Pavlou. Drew poos on chairs lol had already been blocked. Didn't think it required an SPI.
    Please note there is a conversation on Twitter happening about these edits: 1 and 2. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:47.54.146.218

    47.54.146.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been ignoring MOS:HEADINGS despite being warned by me and other editors. This particular IP editor has been inserting references into heading titles (this example) and has also been playing with headings levels – section is level 2 and the editor then adds a level 4 sub-heading in the same section (this example at 2012–13 Montreal Canadiens season#Draft picks). In addition, cases of MOS:REDUNDANCY are also present by adding redundant links (this example). The IP editor has received four warnings in a span of 21 hours on April 5–6, 2024, for its behavior. This looks like a WP:IDNHT or even a WP:CIR case. – sbaio 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update. The reported editor has restored to its preferred versions in a number of pages, while I wrote this report. – sbaio 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I wasn't going to say anything but as the IP's conduct has continued without any improvement they need to be reprimanded as soon as possible. Deadman137 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet IP

    User:197.157.231.74 IS User:Ugaas Raage (see [212], [213]). Nirva20 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn’t this be at sock puppet investigations Maestrofin (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reported this IP and two other suspected sock puppets at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugaas Raage.
    Admins, could you please edit protect the pages Mohammad Ali Samatar and Siad Barre pending the investigation? Reverting this individual's edits is exhausting. Brusquedandelion (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Frenchprotector29

    Frenchprotector29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has done nothing but non-stop disruption, vast majority of their edits have been reverted, been at this since they started editing on 19 December 2023. Talk page is full of warnings (see also this old ANI report which unfortunately got auto-archived [214]). Mainly changes sourced information in a infobox, some examples [215] [216] [217] [218] (notice they tried the same thing twice at Turkoman invasions of Georgia). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think they deserve maybe a 1 week block or something. It seems like warnings aren’t enough for this user.CycoMa1 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely‬ think they should get indeffed, as they have shown zero care to the warnings they have received, engaged in personal attacks (seen in the previous ANI link) as well as disruptive pov pushing. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.125.98.89 - Persistent disruptive editing and racist comments against a fellow editor.

    User:24.125.98.89 has a history of disruptive edits, especially surrounding political issues. Recently, he made an unrelated and inflammatory political remark that only escalated. Looking back at his contributions, he has a history of this behaviour, including this appallingly racist comment towards another editor, and generally hateful comments against Mexicans in particular. I think this IP address should be banned from editing Wikipedia permanently. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yikes! Incredibly offensive. Indef, show them the door. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While IP are never permanently blocked, I'm blocking the IP for 3 months for that comment alone on their talk page. There's absolutely no place for that here. Just to add, if they come back in 3 months and start again, it'll be longer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RickinBaltimore That's their third block this year for racist comments. I had to previously revision-delete their garbage as well. Hope you don't mind, but I added TP protection to your block (due to previous events). Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for performing the block and adding TP protections. I'm not sure if this changes anything, but an editor at WP:ITN/C suspected that this IP is being used for ban evasion by the community-banned User:LaserLegs, a suspicion I now share after reading through more of this editor's "contributions" due to their typing style and their apparent longstanding grievances with ITN/C despite being an IP with few edits. Of course, IP addresses can't be indeffed so I doubt this would affect anything, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite Thanks, I should have thought of that. And I'm open to an admin extending this block should they feel like it's warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a question, Why can't IP address be indeffed? Harvici (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IP addresses get reassigned all the time. The user currently using the IP address will just get another one and so sidestep the indeff block, and whoever next gets assigned the IP would be indeff blocked for something they didn't do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's like a phone number. Just that the number doesn't stick in most cases. Tomorrow i would have a different IP, want it or not. The ip range may stay the same though. But it wouldn't do anyone any good to outright ban the address. More so in english speaking areas where the probability of someone else using that exact address is much higher than in other places. Banning this atlanta based IP would do nothing but prevent/annoy a genuine editor that doesn't have to get in racist quips and commentary from contributing. They could be just a good faith editor that due to various circumstancs could potentially share the same range/exact ip address with a troll like this. 85.16.41.41 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd imagine WP has some stronger signature-based blocking available for extreme cases (rules-based or inference-based) Tonymetz 💬 23:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be overly accusatory, but the IP’s conduct, interests, and pattern of speech reminds me quite a lot of LaserLegs, who was CBANned a while back for racist editing. I suspect we might have a sockpuppet on our hands but I don’t really have the hard evidence to prove it. The Kip 00:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind haha, I see @Vanilla Wizard has already raised my concerns. The Kip 00:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly one of those informal Rules of Wikipedia should be something along the lines of "Using 'LOL' in a talk page reply is a strong indicator of NOTHERE." Ravenswing 08:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From my experience in seeing these IPs, it's usually "lol" when someone first brings up the grievance, followed by "lmao" when an admin blocks/warns them. I agree, it's a good informal rule. Belongs up there with having some variation of "Truth-Seeker" or "Fact-Finder" in one's nickname. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you two are onto something. Maybe there should be a semi-serious essay about this. WP:NOTHERELOL?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Geo-location fits as well. The canadian immigrant LaserLegs has stated they are based in the atlanta area previously. And that that they are an immigrant as well, obviously. And the blatantly racist commentary against fellow immigrants certainly fits their MO as well, as does their language. 85.16.41.41 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An odd one

    This editor appears to be here only to start apparently serious conversations on talk pages, only to eventually reveal that they are pranking. See Talk:Wicca#Medieval_Wicca and Talk:New_Age#Authenticity_Of_Article. Skyerise (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a pretty clear WP:NOTHERE to me. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 23:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but we can afford to give them the opportunity to explain themselves. – 2804:F1...9E:9592 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous edits to Talk:Zen here are indistinguishable from trolling. Their few article space edits are also either crankery or trolling: [219], [220], [221], [222] are all clear nonsense. The final one claims that Guinevere, the legendary wife of King Arthur, was the historical founder of Zen Buddhism! Clearly not here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their reply on their talk page to the ANI notification was You are welcome. Just please do not add any content not related to the topic. so they don't seem to be taking advantage of the opportunity to explain themselves. After reading all of their edits, I agree that they are WP:NOTHERE. Schazjmd (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should just block them. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to clarify that I said we could afford to give them the opportunity to explain themselves when their history was making confusing edits with weeks or months in between them (going unsaid that if they didn't they got blocked).
    Now that they've decided to double down(?) and not come here despite being active, I'd say a block to prevent them from continuing like this is in order. – 2804:F1...7E:F93D (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also perhaps {{uw-hoax}} has made me too optimistic. In the (then) apparent lack of immediate continued disruption hearing them out wouldn't have hurt. – 2804:F1...7E:F93D (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Robinhoodph making clearly bigoted attacks and biased, inaccurate edits.

    THE CLOISTER BELL IS RINGING ...
    Robinhoodph indeffed by Ingenuity.(non-admin closure) Ravenswing 08:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:Robinhoodph has made a few unverifiable, inaccurate edits to "The Doctor (Doctor Who)".[223][224] When I asked about why they reverted my changes on their talk page, I was met with arguments that do not align with Wikipedia's values or policies. Their reasoning cited for many additions, edits, and reverts is pure speculation and, in some places, inaccurate to the information available from the show's episodes.[225][226][227] It is clear, going off this user's talk page, that they have had a history of similar behaviour in other articles and talk pages.

    Moreover, after having given my reasoning for my edits and why theirs did not align with Wikipedia policies and values, they replied with a clear, personal, bigoted attack against me.[228][229] This is a clear violation of WP:NPA, particularly the section discussing blatant, bigoted insults against other editors. I suggest that Robinhoodph receive some form of disciplinary action for this along with their chronic disruptive editing style.

    Zolohyr (they/them) (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems like a pretty cut and dry case of WP:NOTHERE. The Kip 03:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely for that nasty personal attack. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Zolohyr (they/them) (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    EP Edit requests on Battle of Beit Hanoun

    Hi. could someone take a look at the discussion going on at Talk:Battle of Beit Hanoun I'm having a bit of a dispute with another editor, and we decided that someone more experienced could solve this issue.

    Sorry if I posted this in the wrong place; I don't really have disputes like this often. Anyways, thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's zero reason for a dispute here. User:IdontreadonlyLEAD is not extended confirmed. Therefore they're allowed to make edit requests at Talk:Battle of Beit Hanoun and nothing else. They really shouldn't be engaging in back and forth discussion on that talk page. However there was also no reason to tell them to stop making edit requests. If you feel their edit requests are becoming disruptive, then ensure they've been given a WP:CTOP alert for the Arab-Israeli conflict, and if they have warn them on their talk page and if they continue, report them to WP:A/R/E if they continue. Otherwise feel free to answer any of their requests where you can. Again whatever action you take, IdontreadonlyLEAD should not be responding further. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with the "They really shouldn't be engaging in back and forth discussion on that talk page." approach to non-EC editors in the ARBPIA topic area, many of which will be ban-evading sockpuppets who want to tunnel through the 500 edit barrier of course, an issue I've noticed is that when non-trivial edit requests are declined, the reason often includes something about the requester having to obtain consensus. This seems like a bit of a contradiction. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. I mean the wording is not ideal, but if the respondent feels that the change is problematic enough that it cannot be made without further discussion, that's generally a perfectly acceptable response. The original requester cannot participate in that discussion which is a feature not a bug. If others EC editors feel that their change has merit, they're free to take up the discussion. But if no EC editor is interested in doing so, then most likely whatever change they want made is problematic enough that editors actually experienced in editing wikipedia feel it's not a discussion worth having so it's probably a good thing the inexperienced editors don't get to make problems in an already problematic area. There are a large number of pages affected, so I'm sure some pages will fall through the cracks simply due to insufficient eyes which isn't ideal, but is still likely better than the alternative. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not even considered "The original requester cannot participate in that discussion...If others EC editors feel that their change has merit, they're free to..." as a possibility thanks to an apparent lack of imagination on my part. That is very clarifying. Thank you. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW for further clarity I do think responders should word their replies better e.g. something like, 'Sorry I've denied this request as I feel the change needs further discussion and consensus before it can be implemented. Do note any editors who do not meet ARBECR requirements, cannot participate in such a discussion.' However the actual practice is otherwise fine IMO provided those answering are not denying request that really need no discussion. I mean sometimes, it may even be the answerer simply asking if any (EC) editor has comments and then fulling the requests if there's nothing after a few days. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should clarify since I missed this in my response that I meant there's no reason to tell someone they're making too many edit requests on the article talk page. That's often not ideal anyway but in this case is particularly problematic since if the editor needs clarification, they either need to reply on the article talk page and so technically violate ARBECR or split the discussion. Instead, make sure you keep this on the user's talk page so responses are much less problematic. Also since I noticed IdontreadonlyLEAD, had responded to other threads, I've personally warned/reminded them of the ARBECR requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    vandalism

    RAMSES$44932 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has vandalized Category:Al Jazeera, AJ+, Al Jazeera Media Network, Al Jazeera Arabic , Al Jazeera English . They added anti zionist, Conspiracist media, Antisemitic propaganda category into all these pages. Multiple attempts were made to vandalise. Please take appropriate action

    Gsgdd (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has made like over 4000 edits it’s hard to verify claims that they added antisemitic propaganda.
    Can you provide to any links of them doing this?CycoMa1 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    here they are
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_Arabic&diff=prev&oldid=1196103736
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_English&diff=prev&oldid=1196103708
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1196103686
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1217046201
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AJ%2B&diff=prev&oldid=1217046115
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Al_Jazeera&diff=prev&oldid=1215522058
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Jazeera_Media_Network&diff=prev&oldid=1215029098 Gsgdd (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gsgdd You are required to notify all involved editors of discussions at ANI. I have left a notice at RAMSES$44932's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, The user seems to have several other violation on thier talk page as well. Gsgdd (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    But Al Jazeera are self-declared anti-zionists. It is not something disputed. They are anti-zionists. Antisemitic is debatable, but anti-zionist is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAMSES$44932 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @RAMSES$44932, please read WP:CATV. Readers should be able to clearly understand why an article is included in a category by reading the article. Al Jazeera English, for example, makes no mention of zionism or anti-zionism. If it should, that's something you could bring up on that article's talk page, but until then, it should not be included in a category that the article doesn't support. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd@CycoMa1Can we give an official warning to them. They have been using wiki long enough to understand the rules. They also have engaged in multiple edits violating copyrights , disruptive edits etc.. please read their talk page Gsgdd (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Greywolf28

    Mostly taking this here per WP:CIR. This user, while relatively new and presumably acting in good-faith, has spent virtually all of their time creating problematic redirects (see [230]) and categories, often redirecting incredibly general concepts to their Turkish counterparts. They have created pages such as Folkism, often with names that have contradicted WP:COMMONNAME (as no English-language source calls Halkçılık 'folkism') and have bypassed disambiguation pages. They have also tried to insert their own amateur translations and semantic preferences into articles (see [231]).

    I did plan to try and salvage some of this material and talk to them, but it seems from their talk page that they have already had sufficient time and templates to understand that their edits were not up to Wikipedia standards. Uness232 (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the username, this account is likely going to bring a lot of problems.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A link [232] for those who've not heard of them, an ultranationalist Turkish group. Its essentially a paramilitary group, known for violence against political groups. I don't know enough to recommend a definitive WP:NOTHERE block but a brief look at their contributions makes me uneasy. WCMemail 07:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Grey Wolves (organization). If it is derived from that I would say WP:DISRUPTNAME applies. AGFing, it could be a reference to Asena from which the organization got its name. DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Userbox

    Wrong forum. This is a run of the mill dispute which does not necessitate admin intervention. Please discuss on the appropriate talk page. See also WP:DR for suggestions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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



    User:Levi Kambai keeps undoing me and keeps putting his hot dog userbox on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Food when it really belongs on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sandwiches. I told this user that it was on the wrong page and I even told this editor to stop being in an edit war with me. Catfurball (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether a "hot dog" is a sandwich or not is apparently a dispute (Hot_dog#Sandwich_debate). But you're seriously edit-warring over which WP:Userboxes subpage it's listed on? And with apparently no attempt at discussing it with the other editor on their talk page (other than the uncivil warning on their talk page, "If you are so determined to disagree with me take it to the talk page, it seems to me that you are not an American.") and no attempt at discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Food. FFS... Schazjmd (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Abhiramakella – failure to communicate/changing redirect target against the result of an RfD

    The backstory to this is that I've nominated several of this user's redirect creations at RfD, specifically ones which follow a CountryName YYYY format. I recently (March 5) nominated France 2024 at RfD. The result of that discussion was retarget to 2024 in France. Four days after the discussion was closed, Abhiramakella changed the target of France 2024 from 2024 in France to 2024 Summer Olympics. I reached out on their talk page, which can be found here, and asked them multiple times to revert this change. I have not done so myself, as I have already changed the target of this redirect three times already, and I do not want to be seen as edit warring.

    In the edit history of France 2024, you'll note that when I changed the target for the second time, on February 16th, I referenced a recent RfD closure, but I did not (forgot to) provide a link. This was reverted without explanation. On February 20, when I changed the target for the third and final time, I referenced a closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 1#France 2024 (Olympics) in my edit summary here. Abhiramakella then changed the target again the next day and, to their credit, did reach out to me. The last message for that discussion can be found here. Note that I had previously had issues with this user failing to communicate and I had nominated a couple of other relevant redirects they created, which can be found here, a couple of which were also based on the Olympics (Italy 2026 and United States 2028). They also have a history of removing RfD tags from pages that have been nominated for discussion (1, 2), as well as recreating redirects that have previously been deleted (1, 2).

    I've begun to have WP:CIR concerns based on my interactions with Abhiramakella and their failure to communicate has left me no choice but to bring the matter here. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The user did restore the redirect after notification, but their 'fine, you win. I give up.' edit summary suggests they did it to shut up any scrutiny on this thread rather than respecting the consensus as they haven't responded to Josh or commented here. As their page is full of warnings, their use of talk is thin, and Josh did communicate in good faith before taking them to ANI, only to get a brush-off of complete distraction involving nothing to do with this redirect, I feel they absolutely need to comment here. Nate • (chatter) 23:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Ecrusized

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

    Since the edit warring against each other, I found that this user is quite hostile to my whole edit, especially about the article related to Israel-Hezbollah conflict. He rolled back my edit with judging my edit as "Disruptive reverts" although I gave my reason. This is far beyond 3RR or edit warring. And this hostile approach makes me afraid of editing other articles. I even feel he is abusing Wikipedia policy, and I feel this is absolutely against Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Etiquette. 웬디러비/Wendy Lovey (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Ecrusized User 웬디러비 has a tendency to edit war and revert others works, and they have been blocked in the past for the same reason. I have left them a warning on their talk page after a similar behavior was observed. User 웬디러비 is responding to this by opening an administrator notice against me. This is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND type of behavior. Specifically the user is treating editing as a battleground and attempting to escalate their disputes.

    An observation of the users contributions had revealed to me that the vast majority of their edits were reverts of other users contributions. Majority of which had been restored back. And now the opening of this notice against a user who has been trying to warn them, 웬디러비 does not appear to be here to build an encylopedia. Ecrusized (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    4chan raiding on the history of chairs

    4chan's /pol/ has begin raiding the history of chairs removing information about chairs in africa saying they didn't have any. Is their any way I can stop this or a mod can ? also They keep spamming the talks with racism is there any way to stop this too?

    this is proof of them doing it https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/462833613/#46283461 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Developed it entirely (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Our article at History of the chair is already semi-protected. the talk-page disruption is under control atm. Not much more we can do. Lectonar (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Thank you for the help but the information about africans not having chairs until the europeans came is there any way that can be removed?because it's wrong. Developed it entirely (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are saying that the sources in that article are not being accurately summarized, or that unsourced information is present, that's an issue for discussion on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a peek and I would say that the section on Sub-Saharan Africa is weakly sourced. Simonm223 (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It also slightly misinterprets its main source - which makes efforts to note that the main "innovation" offered by Europeans was the integration of back rest and seat into a single object; stating both were already in use, in concert, in Sub-Saharan Africa just as modular objects. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, and it doesn't really say that chairs weren't used at all, but only that stools were primarily used. Lectonar (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being fair that is the present wording, roughly, of the article, despite efforts by racist trolls to make it worse. But I do concur it could use work. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If i may add we have paintings of mansa musa in the Catalan Atlas and negus of abyssinia sitting in a chair by 1314 manuscript illustration Rashid. also Swahili Coast with the grandee’s chair. Developed it entirely (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User 331dot also reverted the article back to the version pushed by the 4Chan trolls. 106.102.128.219 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you change it back to the pre 4chan raid one doesn't say anything about Sub-Saharan Africa Developed it entirely (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the offending section and the hidden comment in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for your help friend. It means alot! Developed it entirely (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncalled, disparaging comments at Talk:2024 New Jersey earthquake

    32.209.69.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made uncalled for, discriminatory and disparaging comments violating WP:NPA about users from different educational backgrounds than theirs in Talk:2024 New Jersey earthquake and brags about such statements being a "valid point" in their arguments. No user should feel unsafe by stumbling on such disgusting attempts to bludgeon and intimidate their way in an argument by showing off how they went to a different school than others rather than engage in educated discussion. Request action to stop such WP:NOTHERE behavior from being repeated again. See: [[233]], [[234]], [[235]] Borgenland (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is over the top. Firstly this is just one thread, so no bludgeoning exists here at all. Secondly, he was not warned before this behavior! We should not be intimidating relative newcomers either with a sudden trial the first time they've done something wrong on a talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Relative newcomers" shouldn't engage in such petty and childish behaviour. You don't have to be new to Wikipedia to know how to treat others with respect.
    There's enough incivility on this project without adding more. This doesn't seem like an editor who is desiring to work collaboratively. AusLondonder (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way they've doubled down repeatedly does not inspire confidence on my part. Had they stopped on the first comments, I would have supported a warning, but their open embrace of such disparaging behavior showcased in the 3rd comment shows that the user's intention of good faith is sketchy in the first place and is a plain performance of exhibitionist show-off antics not contributive to the encyclopedia. Borgenland (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken, so let's see what they'll say here. I kinda feel like the bantering made them assume it was okay to make such comments, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by their recent comments, which have doubled down again (though I feel like it was unnecessary for Borgenland to continue the argument) I'd support a block. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a question of calling them out now than waiting for their WP:BULLYING to do serious damage to Wikipedia as a decent and safe space for educational endeavors. The fact that they couldn’t bother to find me on a map and cast false assumptions as to my identity and that of other users is just indicative of them not being WP:NOTHERE. Borgenland (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments bragging about going to private schools instead of public schools is snooty. I expect most Americans would say it reflects negatively on the commenter, rather than the target. Even at so-called "elite" American universities such as Princeton, comments like the IP's would get the stink-eye from all the listeners. Sad. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a point to prolonging the tangent about schools unless somebody here actually agrees with the IP. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Monarchy of Canada

    I propose that User:Miesianiacal be topic banned from monarchy of Canada, either broadly or more narrowly from the base article. It shouldn't require a minimum of two RfCs (Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Meaning of reside and Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?) to insert the simple, obvious and uncontentious fact that the Canadian monarch lives in the UK. Yet, we are forced to endure bludgeoning of debates[236], disruptive cite tagging,[237][238][239] and WP:POINTy tendentious editing from this single editor every time any other editor tries to edit an article owned by Miesianiacal, who is responsible for more than 75% of edits to the page.[240] The article is a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth that the King of Canada is Canadian. It will only improve when the influence of this editor is removed. DrKay (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If there is a consensus in that article it has been arrived at during Miesianiacal's current absence (and during his temporary ban from editing the article). Wellington Bay (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thankyou. What was his main point that was not valid? Which I mean, what part of what he was advocating for is not reflected in the current consensus? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exact statement was meriting a block. trackratte (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be two allegations here. There's bludgeoning etc at Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?. This has diffs and looking at the thread seems to have a basis. But the second half of the post broadens out to a WP:OWN accusation and being responsible for "a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research", but there are no diffs for that. The former (for a longstanding editor) deserves a warning. The latter needs more evidence to be actioned to a full TBAN or even a PBAN. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were named after royalty. I reverted most of the edits, as they were unsourced and probably not true, but not without pushback. You can see one of the discussions at Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?. --Magnolia677 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa: It took me ages to track down, but I recently removed 3 bits of original research not found in the citations from the article, and they were all added by Miesianiacal or his previous account: Removed citation added by Miesianiacal's old account: [241]; Removed citation added by Miesianiacal's old account: [242]; Removed unverified claim added by Miesianiacal: [243]. I've only really looked at the first two paragraphs of the Residences section, so there could be more elsewhere. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edits are from 14/15 years ago. I don't think they would or could be used to support action now. DeCausa (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'age' of an edit does not necessarily matter, given that there's always the possibility of erroneous information remaining in an article for years to come. Keivan.fTalk 23:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this editor not already block from Monarchy of Canada articles? Moxy🍁 04:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was banned on March 13 for two weeks. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa: The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago. There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy. Meters (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really understand what's meant by "The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago". All I was saying is that edits from 14/15 years won't be taken into account. I dont think that's much in doubt. DeCausa (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Magnolia677's post preceding post included "Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were named after royalty ". That's why I wrote There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy. Meters (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not add "[this was] named after royalty" to any articles, unless with a reliable source. What Magnolia677 is referring to is my adding to articles on places listed at Royal eponyms in Canada a link to that article in the "See also" section, a number of which were removed and I didn't dispute the deletion. I think Victoria Park Collegiate Institute is the only article on which I argued for reinsertion and found cited info to support the connection to Royal eponyms in Canada. It was deleted two and a half hours later and that's the way it's remained ever since. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sanctions, if not an article or topic ban then a revert restriction or talk page interaction ban. I don't think a warning will be adequate. This is essentially the same issue that I raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive467#User:Miesianiacal reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: No violation) and that was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III. Miesianiacal gets away with his behaviour because he acts within the letter of the rules while ignoring their spirit; he knows how to game the system. When challenged, he goes on the attack instead of addressing his own behaviour: for example accusing me of harassment even though I was required to notify him[244] or refusing to listen when challenged on civility: [245][246]. Before IncidentArchive1127 there were multiple requests for comment at Charles III, which closed against him; he then went to third opinion, which was rejected, and then to the dispute resolution noticeboard, which was rejected (diffs are all at IncidentArchive1127). So, he went forum-shopping to the administrators' noticeboard with a cherry-picked selection of edits that were better than his own behaviour. That is his typical operating style: delay, dismiss, attack, and never surrender. The tactic is to pursue endless circular debate, blame everyone else, and refuse to listen to or accept any counter-argument or advice. The same thing that happened at Charles III is happening at Monarchy of Canada: we are forced to go through multiple requests for comment to make the simplest change (with the result that editors wonder what we're doing: [247]). Once the discussion starts, we then suffer through his sabotage of the debate, such as refusing to accept sources that disprove his argument, for example [248] backtracking from [249]. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe there are also WP:OWN issues at Monarchism in Canada and Republicanism in Canada, particularly the former. Miesianiacal has strenuously objected to updating the articles to include references to opinion polls taken in the past two years that show there is greater support for removing the monarchy than there is for retaining it. (see [250]) and Republicanism in Canada (see Talk:Republicanism in Canada). At present the polls cited in Monarchism in Canada are at least 15 years old.

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

    What, if any, administrative or community action would you support? Celia Homeford (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban - the ban could be reconsidered at a later point but at present the editor shows no capacity to negotiate or seek or accept compromise, or collaborate, let alone accept a consensus view he disagrees with. Wellington Bay (talk)
      Supplemental - there are still plenty of pages regarding the monarchy in the UK and other Commonwealth realms that Miesianiacal would be able to edit. If he can demonstrate a collaborative approach on those pages, then the Canadian monarchy topic ban can be revisited. Alternatively, if his approach does not change, the topic ban could spread to cover all articles regarding the British and Commonwealth monarchy (for lack of a better term). In any case, this topic ban wouldn't be the end of the road and he would have avenues where he could prove himself. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom? and my brain attempted to leave my skull. I have never seen such a nonsensical collection of distorted logic, and yes, a narrow article ban should be considered for at least one editor (the one mentioned in the lead here). Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for Miesianiacal from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. If this type of behavior migrates to other topic areas, broader restrictions may be required. This is classic POV pushing. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not support There are a multitude of pieces including several articles and different conversations in this accusation, however, I did read one (the question of residency), and I am not comfortable with the idea of sanctioning a long-time editor with considerable expertise in the area simply for being firm on a specific point on a Talk page which would seem to me to undermine the point of the Talk page in the first place, and in the spirit of lively debate with a minimum standard of decorum, as that's how we elucidate (ideally) the best way forward in good-faith, as opposed to single-editor dictatorship or mob-rule, both of which are to be strenuously avoided.
      Second, the article states that Charles III lives in the UK last I checked, so I'm not quite sure what the core issue is. Clearly no one is currently standing in the way of portraying that fact.
      In this case's Talk Page, there is a valid logical argument to made on the important distinction on the separation of office from an individual person. A slightly humorous example would be that, just because the current Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau, the official residence of the Prime Minister is 24 Sussex, and Justin Trudeau is also the coach of the little league team the Ottawa Cubs, that does not mean that the official residence of the Coach of the Ottawa Cubs is 24 Sussex, nor even that Justin Trudeau even lives at 24 Sussex. So, in this case, the monarch of the UK is, from Canada's point of view, a foreign head of state. The King of Canada does not have any official residences in the UK, but the King of Canada does have official residences in Canada. Where Charles III sleeps at night, or where the King of the UK as a foreign head of state lives has no bearing on the status or the location of a Canadian official residence. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that was the sticking point or the point that was trying to me made, and as I said, I think such a point is valid as is the logic behind it. And so the consensus I believe that is reflected in the article, or should be, is that the King of Canada has official residences in Canada, and that Charles III himself predominantly lives in the UK. No one should be censured for contributing to that consensus.
      Is it a little bit arcane and pedantic? Yes. But that is often the nature of deep-dive discussions of certain topics, particularly ones swirling around constitutional politics.
      As there was a bit of a swirl of allegations, please feel free to be more specific if you feel I've missed the most salient or fundamental issue under discussion here. trackratte (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I take it all are aware these are called "Canada’s Official Residences" would be best if terms are not madeup. Would help things alot I think. Moxy🍁 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per Cullen328. The bludgeoning has to stop. Look, I understand the kind of pedantry that surrounds the issue. My first few years on this project were almost solely devoted to peerage matters. But this is too much. Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support some sort of action if Miesianical doesn't strongly commit to accepting feedback and accepting consensus does not always line up with his personal slant. On one hand, Miesianiacal has contributed a lot of content on royalty in Canada, which is mostly good, and deserves some shout-outs for that. And... I get it. There are some articles on Wiki where having a "guard dog" editor hazing new edits closely can actually be a good thing (medical articles most famously, perhaps). If Miesianiacal was providing "stewardship" that occasionally was a tad tendentious, I get it. However... I'm not sure that's really the case here, and rather Miesianiacal himself is the issue, inserting POV slants in articles that do not accord with the sources, which makes any OWNership concerns much more pressing. So yes, this is ANI not a content board, but it's relevant, so let's look at Miesianiacal's grasp of content. Take a look at this old revision of Monarchies in the Americas for example: it distinguishes "American monarchies" from "Foreign monarchies" as if there was some sort of substantive difference between the King of Denmark ruling Greenland from afar and Charles III ruling Jamaica from afar. Which, strictly speaking, there is a difference of course, but a wildly overblown one that is hardly section-heading level worthy. Or take the line "Most pre-Columbian cultures of the Americas developed and flourished for centuries under monarchical systems of government." Totally bonkers and unsourced, and tying the "flourishing" to the monarchial system of government. More generally, we simply do not know the details of the government system of "most pre-Columbian cultures." It's just wild speculation. That's just the start of the problems with the old article. (I'm picking on it specifically because it was at GAR a bit ago and I took a look into it, where it was wildly overplaying certain "monarchies" and their level of support, like treating Arucania & Patagonia as if it were a real state and not a fantasy.) I'd argue that all of the provincial level "Monarchies of XYZ" are problematic for example, with the possible exception of Monarchy in Quebec (although... I'd really want to triple-check all the sources talking about just how much the Quebecois loved their monarch back in the day as being valid and not Anglophone Canada wishful thinking.) Take a look at Monarchy in Alberta, for example, which should probably be reformulated into something else as it's a lot of talking about nothing in particular. A very small number of people turned out for some event honoring the Queen? Stop the presses. Okay, back to conduct: Miesianical being a Canadian monarchist isn't a problem, exactly. But going against their wishes is really not worth it due to the risk of bludgeoning talk page conversations or edit wars (the one time I did, on something I considered a slam dunk on sourcing grounds, felt like pulling teeth, but also happened ages ago at this point, so not worth rehashing). If Miesianiacal can just seriously commit to toning it down a bit and being willing to take the L when others disagree, then no need to do anything other than verify he's keeping the commitment. But otherwise, yeah, maybe time for a topic ban. (And per above, if a topic ban happened, I'd strongly encourage Miesianiacal not to continue the exact same behavior at other Commonwealth monarchies- going around to give the same treatment to Monarchy of The Bahamas subarticles would not really solve the problems here.) SnowFire (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Upgrade to support topic ban, broadly construed. Miesianical's response below is that actually, there is no problem and everyone is getting upset over nothing, because there's no proof of anything. I guess all the editors here taking exception to his collaboration style don't count as proof either? If he doesn't think there's a problem, then he can't fix it, so we are left with this. It's really not that hard to commit to accepting feedback, but he isn't even bothering to try. SnowFire (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I literally said that I'm open to accepting I've done wrong. But, since my analysis of the evidence (spelled out below) doesn't show me how I bludgeoned or abused tags, I'm asking (like, three times now) for clarification, so I can see what I might currently be missing or reevaluate what I see. Telling me "you did bad" tells me nothing about what exactly I did that was bad and, therefore, gives me no idea of how I'm supposed to modify my behaviour. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Miesianiacal: I believe you that was your intent. But intentions don't matter. Just as I'm sure you thought you were making a peace offering good faith, you have to believe everyone else that what actually comes across in your posts below is a desire to continue axe-grinding and bludgeoning with DrKay. As if that was the only problem, which it isn't, nor is it even the most important problem - it's your interaction with other editors in general.
        • You mentioned below that you need to work on brevity. I can't speak for others, but for me, I'd have been willing to change my vote to avoid a formal sanction with just three sentences or so. Something like "While I stand by my edits, I understand that consensus will sometimes be against me. I'll discuss these matters on the talk page rather than revert war, keep it to just a few paragraphs or so on the talk page, and let the matter drop if it seems like a one-against-many situation." And then actually do that. Something to keep in mind for your future editing. SnowFire (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding AN/I, then. It appears to me it sometimes, as in this instance, acts as a quasi-court. Someone's laid a charge against me. Unrelated, some misrepresented, incidents from months or years ago have been dragged in. To my mind, that, collectively, is all I'll be judged on, if I don't mount some kind of defence. Yet, at the same time, I don't want to be adamantly defensive--I want to say I don't see the charges as valid, here's why, but, I still accept they could be valid and I'm open to hearing--no, literally asking to hear--how so. Up to now, I would've thought something like your suggested statement would've been taken as a kind of flippant disregard of everyone's criticisms and that would be used against me. But, what you've said has made me question my interpretation of this as a trial.
    Alright. Well, I have no idea how long something like this goes on for. But, I hope there's time for me to reconsider my main response; I mean, what I've already written is there and, well, the consequences will be the consequences. But, my feelings and opinions aren't immutable. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also support some sort of action if Miesianical doesn't make efforts to be more collaborative. I haven't had any run-ins with them in quite some time because, frankly, I have very limited interest in monarchy. However my past interactions with them are very much in line with what others have said here - a tendency toward WP:OWN, bludgeoning on talk page and walking right to the edge of WP:3RR. If they're still up to these antics nearly a decade on then I'd say they should be invited to consider making some changes to their editing behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from anything to do with the Canadian monarchy & perhaps the monarchies of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms (past & current) broadly construed. Indeed, two RFCs shouldn't have been required at Monarchy of Canada, but I didn't know what else to do to stop the disruption. Also see this RfC at British royal family, from about a year ago. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban per user:Cullen. Off the top of my head I don't remember noticing this editor's work in other areas, but certainly the Canadian area is an issue. I don't believe this editor's bludgeoning is made in good faith. Meters (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - As mentioned, my experience at Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty? and similar articles was not positive. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The response by Miesianical below speaks for itself. In the RFC I asked for Miesianical to drop the stick and the response was baffling. Hopefully the editor learns something from this discussion so the behavior doesn't spread elsewhere. - Nemov (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on Canadian monarchy and perhaps on the Commonwealth monarchy per above. Clearly a widespread and longstanding complex of issues. Especially the apparent suppression of information regarding support for republicanism in Canada, that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Enough of the bias, I'll support the topic ban. JM (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on all Commonwealth monarchies. I feel like a more "broadly construed" topic ban would be best suited here, because of how inter-connected everything is. Charles, the King of Canada, is legally distinct from Charles, the King of the UK, but I fear a "Canada only" topic ban would lead Miesianiacal to bring their issues to other pages like Monarchy of the United Kingdom, Monarchy of Australia, etc... under the guise of the fact that they are technically not discussing the "Canadian royal family" anymore. Canuck89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page 09:04, March 26, 2024 (UTC)

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

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

    That continues in the same vein:

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

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

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

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

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

    And "[this proves] how nasty and desperate you are" [251], from DrKay on Talk:Monarchy of Canada, is an overt personal attack, which a continuation of the earlier attacks from him that both crossed and didn't quite cross WP:NPA: "Don't play stupid, you know damn well what's meant" [252]; “you are ruining more than one article on my watchlist” [253]; "you don't assume good faith [...] Treat them like shit you've scraped off the bottom of your shoe and they will likely respond by blanking your messages to them and asking you not to message anymore. Please do not message me anymore" [254]; this accusation of bad faith; this unconstructive attempt at besmirchment; etc. There are certainly zero examples of my expressing anything to DrKay that violates WP:NPA.

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

    To sum up, "I did nothing wrong. It's all DrKay's fault." This is a version of what I said above: blaming others and refusing to accept you've done anything wrong. You claim here that there is no evidence of bludgeoning, but then in your final link here ("this unconstructive attempt at besmirchment") you link to a discussion where there are 13 diffs showing you making the same comment 13 times, which you claim is not bludgeoning. DrKay's behaviour is far from laudable but then you shouldn't have goaded them should you? Celia Homeford (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked above for clarification on how my interactions at Talk:Monarchy of Canada constituted bludgeoning and my use of tags on Monarchy in Canada was abusive cite tagging. That is altogether different from "it's all DrKay's fault". (DrKay's personal insults being my fault is an opinion I'll ignore.) DrKay making two accusations of bludgeoning against me doesn't prove I ever engaged in bludgeoning; and I need to point out here, because mention of it is absent from your remark: in response to his first accusation back in May 2023, I presented DrKay with the proof that I didn't actually "[make] the same argument over and over, to different people" (it was just a weeks-long and wide-ranging dispute involving many different people and some requests outside it for new people to join and possibly help break impasses). After that, he dropped the argument.
    DrKay might be at fault here; given he's violated WP:NPA numerous times to make his hatred of me clear and half of his OP at the top is unsubstantiated, negative opinion, he may possibly have revealed that his motivation is personal. He might not be at fault. It might be that he I and are both at fault, in our own ways. Even if, hypothetically, for now, DrKay did start this for the wrong reasons, that wouldn't mean I didn't actually do some of what he's accused me of. Hence, I'm requesting edification, preferrably from neutral, dispassionate parties who'll consider all the evidence in its proper contexts. Because, as I explained above, I personally, right now, don't see how the evidence backs up the charges (particularly the bludgeoning one). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I would dispassionately recommend is to work on being more concise. These text walls contribute in part, though not in whole, to the sense of bludgeoning. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I feel hung between a need to be thorough and to be concise. But, brevity is a challenge for me here and off Wikipedia; I'm working on it for reasons that exist outside of this realm. However, the walls of text contributing to a sense of bludgeoning on talk pages is a new perspective to me and interesting; I can get it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw "nasty and desperate"[255] though I note that the false claim that provoked it (made by Miesianiacal for no apparent reason other than to attack me since its content was not part of the discussion until then) remains unwithdrawn. DrKay (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Amended 21:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's stricken. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My edit on 4 March: [256], tags a self-published vanity project, an anthology of fictional works, and an official Canadian government source that says explicitly, not that the Queen resided in Canada, but that she belongs in the same category as "foreign heads of state" and that she "visits" Ottawa along with "other royal visitors". The edit on 5 March: [257] removes an invention of Miesianiacal's that George VI's 1939 state visit to the United States was on behalf of Canada uniquely. He knows this invention is untrue because we had a long discussion about it at Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother/Archive 2#Royal tours. The same edit tags a source that does not support the material it is next to. The edits therefore demonstrate that sources are twisted and that the article includes original research. He also lists a series of uncivil edits but fails to mention that they are all in response to his baiting, which can be seen by looking at the comment(s) to which they respond or the preceding edits. For example, [258] is in response to the unsubstantiated claim that I think the article used to say the Canadian monarch lives in Canada. That is untrue. I should not have taken the bait but it is difficult to avoid doing so when it is so frequently flung in my face. If Miesianiacal doesn't want to awaken bears, he shouldn't poke them with a stick. Once again in his response to this discussion, we are faced with his absolute refusal to acknowledge any bludgeoning. DrKay (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I was not involved in this original dispute, but became involved in discussions after commenting in the second RfC. As I wasn't involved at that time, I don't think I have anything useful to add about users' conduct while the first RfC was taking place. I will say though that some of DrKay's comments since have not been particularly productive. Calling other editors comments (mine included) "Farcical garbage", wrongly accusing them of strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, and deflection aren't really helping anyone reach consensus there. It seems the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw "farcical garbage" pursuant to Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility #1d.[259]. DrKay (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This sort of blanking activity is also not helpful.[260][261] It would be nice if editors like DrKay were trying to build a better encyclopedia instead of making disruptive edits and name calling.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no name calling in either of those edits. Nor are they disruptive. Ill-considered accusations of impropriety are uncivil. See Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility point 1c. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote Miesianiacal,[262] you just lost the right to lecture on civility by making bad faith, and inaccurate, accusations like thisand this. There's no name calling from me on this page. DrKay (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems we disagree on civility also. I don't think coming out and calling others comments "Farcical garbage", or coming out of the gate early on to accuse me of strawman, ad hominem attacks, and deflection as helpful to a healthy discussion of article content.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't name calling nor is it "at ANI". Also, it's bad form to constantly complain about the same withdrawn comments. Once a comment is withdrawn, the matter should be considered dropped. DrKay (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a stronger statement if the linked argument wasn't a strongman. The one who came and deflected was from a healthy discussion was you when you entered *this* discussion wildly throwing allegations at people other than the editor under consideration. What you are doing right now is deflecting and making ad-hominem attacks. You need to drop the stick before you get hit with a boomerang. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, would also support a broader ban from aristocratic government overall. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can this be formally closed? We've now got a third RfC, being called a "straw poll", on the article talk page, and it's being billed (in a comment over 5kB in length) as the first in a "series"[263]. This confirms my comments of 3 weeks ago: "endless circular debate" and "forced to go through multiple requests for comment to make the simplest change"[264]. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see this response to DrKay's PA to understand the distinction between debates. It's clearly stated in the OP of the poll that "this is not a challenge to the settled matter of which country the monarch resides in." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The POV-pushing is an issue for me. An edit like this is a perfect example, literally right after the RfC on where the monarch resides. Removing legitimate opinion polling on Canadian republicanism citing "npov" is akin to censorship and another perfect example of POV-pushing. Most of the articles relating to the monarchy in Canada and republicanism in Canada appear to have a monarchist bias, Debate on the monarchy in Canada is an example of this. "Monarchists assert the use of the inaccurate adjective "British" in a poll question on the Canadian monarchy, or implications that the present Canadian head of state isn't Canadian" - this unsourced statement is literally just wrong. How can anyone actually argue Charles isn't British but is Canadian? AusLondonder (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Binnenstaat

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

    This user has repeatedly reverted good faith edits without providing sufficient explanation. An example is on Survivor 46 when they have twice reverted an addition to an episode summary that is clearly not vandalism. See [[265]] and Binnenstaat's revision [[266]]. I firmly believe they made an account with Wikipedia just to edit every article they read to fit their own vision regardless of whether or not their edits are constructive. Other users on Binnenstaat's talk page have disclosed similar experiences regarding Binnenstaat's edits. 50.232.92.83 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added the standard links to the report. TSventon (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not intend to edit every article I read to fit my own vision. I intend to revert vandalism. To do so, I use the contribution quality predictions filter. It sometimes marks good-faith edits as having problems. Binnenstaat (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The quality filter is supposed to be just a tool. You should not revert an edit just because the filter said it is vandalism. GenericUser24 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits to Survivor 46 were clearly not vandalism. Please exercise more caution in the future when making reversions, especially if it’s on a topic you are not familiar with. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I count 5 complaints to Binnenstaat's talk page in the past two weeks about inappropriate reverts. Some appear to be clearly bad. Binnenstaat also appears to be unresponsive to requests to clarify his actions, which has drawn complaints already. This is concerning, given that he is issuing warnings inappropriately based on these edits. This is an inappropriate usage of Twinkle, which requires one to Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith. If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response. Editors should either make a reasonable attempt to improve the change, or should simply leave it in place for future editors to improve. @Binnenstaat: -- I'm going to ask that you voluntarily cease using the Twinkle tool until you can demonstrate that you're capable of using automated tools correctly. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All the complaints you brought up are over 7 days old. I will no longer use Twinkle to undo good-faith changes merely because they are unsatisfactory. I will only use Twinkle to undo contributions that are arguably wrong, unreasonably difficult to fix, or vandalism. Binnenstaat (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those complaints are still quite recent, so I'm not sure what you're getting at by dismissing them as being "over 7 days old" as you've yet to address any of those concerns adequately with the users who raised them, nor have you committed to being more responsive. Further, I was not asking you to use Twinkle in limited scenarios, I was asking you not to use it at all. You were already expected to use Twinkle appropriately, and you failed to do so. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 04:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The White House from Faisalabad

    Just a bit ago, I raised a report about The White House from Faisalabad (talk · contribs) on WP:AIV, but unfortunately, it was overlooked. As the user persists in their vandalism, adding abusive remarks see this and clearly engaging in disruptive behavior see this, I'm bringing it up here for attention. Pinging @HJ Mitchell and Bbb23:. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Overlooked"? I removed it because all you were doing was arguing with the administrator. AIV is not the best place to have a discussion, and it had sat there a while.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's abundantly clear from this user's editing history that they're not here to WP:HTBAE. Since joining on 5 April, their sole activity has been vandalism see this. Take a look at their edits - not a single one adds any value. There's no room for warnings here; they need to be blocked immediately. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoyojojoop. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I've done my own review, including their most recent edits, and I've indeffed them for disruption. The only thing I wonder is whether they are a sock of Yoyojojoop, who was indeffed for disruption on April 3 by Ad Orientem.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Sheikh Rehan Shahid (talk · contribs) and Sh Rehan Shahid (talk · contribs) -- First, see this and this edits by Yoyojojoop. Now see this edit by The White House from Faisalabad. A quick Google search reveals that Sheikh Rehan Shahid is a kid from Faisalabad. It's clear that this vandalism is coming from the same source. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more sock puppets involved in this disruptive behavior. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Sheikh Rehan Shahid Official (talk · contribs) 103.150.206.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 103.150.206.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well accounts/IPs behind now deleted Draft:Sheikh Rehan Shahid Yasin and Draft:Sheikh Rehan Shahid. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Racist personal attack on IP user talk page

    IP blocked by Black Kite and revisions hidden. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I've been the subject today of this [267] personal attack, complete with multiple racist elements. It's been reverted but I'd appreciate it if it was struck from the history altogether. This IP is already rangeblocked for three years anyway, and this individual proves they can't be trusted even with user talk access. I took issue with some poor writing of his back in July of last year, and he can't let it go, apparently. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Backlog at RFPP

    FYI, there seems to be a longer than usual backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Right now, there's about 30+ requests pending. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved
     – Looks like a number of people have jumped on it and tamed the wild backlog.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet of globally locked user

    223.55.90.209 (talk · contribs)

    Sockpuppet of globally locked User:보민개, infamous on Korean WP for inserting nonsensical phrases such as "바지에 똥 싸는 똥태훈"(Poop Taehun poops his pants) on random articles and/or moderation pages. --175.112.55.226 (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the block evading IP vandal for three months and semi-protected the target article for six months. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you :) -- 175.112.55.226 (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgently need these pages protected

    User:Ugaas Raage was banned for tendentious editing, but is continuing to edit pages under multiple IP socks, for which I and @Nirva20 have opened a sockpuppet investigation. However, pending the investigation, it would be greatly appreciated if the following pages could be protected so at a minimum IP addresses cannot edit them:

    Thank you. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like Mohammad Ali Samatar and Bu'ale have had one IP edit each. What's the urgency? RudolfRed (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are almost certainly socks of Ugaas Raage, and there is no indication that they intend to stop. But yes, Siad Barre has received the brunt of the disruptive editing since that user was banned. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MLKLewis

    MLKLewis (talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting the same content over and over (again) against consensus. Can they please be blocked from all Landmark-related articles, broadly construed?

    1 2 3

    For literally decades the Landmark sock- and meatpuppets have been trying to influence Wikipedia articles about Landmark and related topics. There was an arbcom case and a bunch of them got banned but that did little to stop their activity. Another will pop up in a couple of days or weeks but at least that is a couple of days or weeks of peace.

    Polygnotus (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that is probably the best move. I never realised it went on that far back and or there was an arbcom case. scope_creepTalk 07:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the abuse is blatant enough to warrant an indef block: such edit warring, including the inflation of source material and the writing of tendentious, promotional text, goes against the very spirit of what we do here, no matter how hard the editor works on Maggie L. Walker. A topic ban is the least we can do. Drmies (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I was thinking this afternoon about why the editor is edit warring like mad, to get that block in. I suspect there is some kind of relationship there that I can't fathom and no communication until the ANI notice. scope_creepTalk 13:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DefaultFree engaging in stalking behavior

    DefaultFree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is now following me around due to their disagreement with my editing on the Discordianism articles and harassing me on talk pages of articles they have never edited. See [268]. Having been stalked in real life, I find this intended to intimidate and discourage me from editing. Skyerise (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I reviewed WP:HOUNDING, and believe this to fall under Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing [...] violations of Wikipedia policy (wrt WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which is the common thread to Discordianism that precipitated this). I don't intend to intimidate or cause distress in any way. If attempting to address a policy issue that spans multiple pages like this is not appropriate, I am open to suggestions for other approaches.
    Also, not trying to claim that it would be justified on this basis alone, but I was modeling the same behavior I saw from User:Skyerise when she similarly followed my edits from Discordianism/Talk:Discordianism to Template talk:In use#Template-protected edit request on 8 April 2024. DefaultFree (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except in that case your discussion was about my then-ongoing use of the template on Discordianism, so it was related to an ongoing issue we were both already involved in. It was also a form of venue shopping, trying to find a way to shut down my use of the {{In use}} and {{Under construction}} because you didn't like the time periods that the templates allow for their use.
    This is different, you followed me to a completely unrelated article with no relation to any mutual issue or previous editing involvment. And it is clearly with the intent to Wikilawyer me and chill my speech. Skyerise (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a connection in this instance too - your WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.
    Like I said, there was no intent to intimidate, just to address an issue that I had a connection to via another article. I'm certainly sensitive to the statement that it's had an intimidating effect, and intend to WP:CHILL on this until we hear from an administrator as to its appropriateness. DefaultFree (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors do not get to stalk other editors as if they were some kind of authorized WikiPolice. The guideline you quote is about fixing actual errors introduced into articles by newbie editors who don't yet know what they are doing; it's not an authorization to hound a very-long-term editor on talk pages or to try to enforce your reading of guidelines. That displays a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, playing Wikipedia like it is some kind of video game you can win by playing rule-enforcer. That this is what you are doing is supported by your attempt to game the use of {{In use}} by getting someone to change the rules for you on the amount of time permitted for their placement while I was correctly using them. (Thanks for bringing that up, by the way. I would have been happy to rest on the single issue, but now there are two.) Skyerise (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your tenure vs my tenure is not relevant; you appear to be attempting to pull rank (again, see statement #1 on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). Regarding the template edit request, I'm not asking for the rules to be changed. I'm asking for the template text to be updated to reflect the rules as they actually exist, instead of (as it currently does) prescribing a restriction on edits that has no basis in policy, which can be gamified for WP:OWN purposes. DefaultFree (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who takes a look at the before and after (diff) of my edits on Discordianism will see that I properly used those templates to give myself space to add reliable, third-party, academic sources to support all, or at least nearly all, of the material which needed support, despite your refusal to assume good faith by making repeated and unsupported accusations of WP:OWN and WP:STONEWALLING. I also removed any or most material for which I could not find support. Isn't that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? I had no desire to "own" the article, just supply the sources which other editors made clear were needed - and those editors backed off while you chose to attack and try to game the {{in use}} template, by the way. I'm not a Discordian and I didn't previously write any of the article content. My schtick is reviewing sources, finding sources, and adding supporting citations where they are needed. Since I wasn't "owning" the article in any of the usual senses of the word, just using tools which are supplied for the use of any editor to prevent the article being changed beneath them while making either long, complex edits or breaking those edits down into more convenient smaller edits, your premise is false and therefore your stalking behaviour is unjustified. Skyerise (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the accusation that I failed to AGF, the following is my first AGF-related interaction with you:
    • [269] - You revert-and-{{in use}}-lock the page after a disagreement with another editor
    • [270] - (9 hours later) I notice that the page has not been edited in 5 hours, and remove the {{in use}} tag with edit summary "remove {{in use}} tag that the placing editor forgot to remove" (linking AGF)
    • [271] - (4 hours later) You revert my change and in the edit summary, state that my assumption was incorrect, that you meant to leave it there
    At what point is one justified to stop assuming good faith? When the other editor directly tells them that they were incorrect to assume good faith? DefaultFree (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You could clearly observe that I was advancing that article when I editied. The fact that I was adding sources and citing them wasn't enough for you to determine that I was working in good faith? It's not a sin to take a short break - I'm elderly and forgetful, sometimes I take a break intending to come back shortly but fall asleep. Sosumi for being old, what dontcha? Oh, wait, that's exactly the kind of Wikilawyering you're engaged in. Now that you've been following me around, when do I get to stop assuming good faith, eh? Skyerise (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WhereverWeAreNow is NOTHERE

    See also: WP:Teahouse § If wikipedia is not a forum then where else do I go?

    WhereverWeAreNow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    I regret needing to report this user who is apparently having some troubles, but WhereverWeAreNow is clearly WP:NOTHERE and needs at least a temporary block. RudolfRed (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    please dont block me ive been blocked enough and it makes me extremely angry WhereverWeAreNow (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Copping to evading a block is a very good way to get blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 04:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this is my only account on here, i was talking about on different sites. im not ban evading please i promise just dont ban me on here WhereverWeAreNow (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked WhereverWeAreNow as not here to build an encyclopedia. I hope that this person can find some peace elsewhere. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy is an essay that applies here. Cullen328 (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I undid The Herald (Benison)'s good-faith close, as the situation appears to be not fully resolved and editors wish to continue discussing it here. DMacks (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wherever We Are Now Is Not Here would make a great title for an album or metaphysics book. Levivich (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's great that some Wikipedians really tried to engage and help the user in good faith, but at some point you've got take a step back at simply WP:DENY when you come across someone like this because otherwise they will never really stop. I was hoping this user would just move on after everything that took place yesterday, but obviously that's not how things turned out. It seems obvious (at least to me) that they were enjoying the attention they were receiving by "fooling" everyone who was trying to help them. Moreover, when you see edits like this, this and this in addition to the multiple Teahouse threads and other similar posts on user talk pages (including mine), it's probably better to take action sooner than later. I wish I had done so myself yesterday. Anyway, I strongly suggest that their TPA be taken away as well because their unblock requests don't seem to indicate any change in attitude, and admins are going to have to keep dealing with frivilous unblock requests until they can't post any more. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think they were being dishonest, but I do think they’re wallowing in negative attention. When you’re at rock bottom you want some outlet for how awful you feel but don’t actually want help, so you ask for help for the sole purpose of shooting it down. That’s different from typical attention seeking, which typically is dishonest and caused by boredom and emotional neediness. I have similar mental health issues and understand this exact situation. I also know someone in the latter situation. Dronebogus (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think TPA needs to be taken away, at least not indefinitely. The user clearly needs help, and if they eventually get some hopefully they can appeal their block and come back.
    I also want to note that there really isn't anything we can do for them at this point. T&S was contacted last night, and as many users have already reached out to them, there is nothing else we can do. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have revoked talk page access and referred this person to WP:UTRS. Cullen328 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, somehow I totally forgot UTRS existed! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alexfotios

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

    This user wants to make a change to LiveJasmin. They began by proposing these changes multiple times at WP:EFFP but eventually found their way to the article's Talk page. A user disagreed, so they casted aspersions[272] and asked for a third opinion. That TO also disagreed, so they posted an RFC. More users unanimously disagreed with their changes, so they posted another RFC. It is clear that they will not drop the stick unless forced to: The truth cannot be obfuscated by rules; rather it will find a way to conform with them and come out eventually and you can't stop it - sorry.[273].

    Besides WP:ICHY, they seem to not understand the policies. They have repeatedly been explained policies by multiple users, such as synthesis, original research, and reliability, but they continue to not get it. For example, multiple users have told them to not cite Wikipedia as a reference, and each time they have said it's fixed, but they are still doing it in their latest proposal. I wrote a detailed explanation of what SYNTH is and told them to remove unnecessary citations, they claim to have done so but didn't actually change any citations. I do not know if they are doing this on purpose or if this is WP:CIR. Mokadoshi (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Literally every edit is somehow related to the LiveJasmin non-troversy so they’re definitely WP:NOTHERE. Dronebogus (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite all admins to take a look at the discussion on Talk:LiveJasmin and see how although I complied with all reasonable suggestions and ended up with a section that, IMO, merits inclusion, some users seem, for some reason, unreasonably unwilling to include something that I think merits it. The reporting party here User:Mokadoshi, took something from the proposed section and added it to the page extracting a completely, in my opinion, WP:SYNTH and POV conclusion, if judged by the same standards. When I rebutted as below he asked for my deletion here.

    ::Also User:Mokadoshi I do not see in the article the section your said that was added. Alexfotios (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

    I didn't mean to say that the entire section was added to the article, just the Reporter.lu reference. The sentence in the article is In countries where sex webcamming is illegal, studios and models assume legal risk instead of the platform. This sentence is appropriately supported by the Reporter.lu reference since the article is about models facing legal trouble due to their local laws (as far as I can tell, because I don't speak German). Mokadoshi (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    User:Mokadoshi, the one line that you added is definitely POV and SYNTH: "In countries where sex webcamming is illegal, studios and models assume legal risk instead of the platform." Specifically "studios and models assume legal risk instead of the platform" is an absolute assertion that implies a number of falsehoods: 1) That all studios and models are fully aware of their legal responsibility and the possible penalties they face when they sign on, as those are well laid out or omitted in very carefully crafted terms in the site's ToS, 2) That the company, although in full knowledge of the repercussions that go up to life imprisonment up to now and may reach the death penalty, at some point, in countries like Uganda (Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66645740), bears no moral or business ethics responsibility at all; e.g. something similar can be claimed by a drug dealer who sells to adults - yet drug dealers are not absolved of moral or legal repercussions. Alexfotios (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

    Alexfotios (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve never edited the article. I’m not here about a content dispute I’m here about their behavior. They are not here to build an encyclopedia they are here to right great wrongs despite multiple warnings. Mokadoshi (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unarchived: User on a deletion spree

    CLOSED
    Nycarchitecture212 is subject to a topic ban from Judaism, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed to the community after six months. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    • Note: this discussion was archived yesterday without closure. It looks to me like it has a clear consensus for a sanction. Could somebody please close? Bishonen | tålk 08:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Warned at [274]. Did it again at [275]. Did it again at [276]. Their purpose seems to be to WP:CENSOR articles which don't conform to their religious opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This is a parody of an argument. This paragraph verbatim doubles perfectly well as a joke one would make, which they would then follow with the bare punchline of saying "citation needed!" out loud in a smirking tone. Unbelievable. Remsense诉 00:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you are making me out to be so sinister here, it's honestly really disappointing, there is no "smirking tone" on my end as you describe I can assure you of that. I don't see what the joke is to you, but you've made your opinion known. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    just because something is in a book doesn't make it true—in itself a valid point, but it indiscriminately applies to each and every book (except your own, of course). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why the user is trying to make it sound like I haven't been sticking to the sources or that I am somehow ant-academic. Every time I attempted to talk with them on talk pages they side-stepped discussion by just calling me an anti-academic in one form or another which is just not true. See Abrahamic Religions talk page for example. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sticking to the sources—you have repeatedly deleted information based upon WP:IS, often pretending that you know Judaism much better than full professors (or so it seems from the fact that you have been deleting their views from Wikipedia). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear: I'm not trying to connote a sinister tone. Over the period where I've been aware of these issues, it's increasingly seemed to be a competence issue, rather than a bad faith concern, unfortunately. Remsense诉 02:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You think that only the Talmud and Halacha matter; the Wikipedia Community begs to disagree: mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP matters, and it is not your privilege to WP:CENSOR it from Wikipedia.
    And the Talmud is supposed to retract a claim from a much older Jewish writing? Short of changing the text of the Bible, I don't know how this is supposed to work. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And again at [277]. This has to stop! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Proposal: INDEF Sanctions for Nycarchitecture212

    This seems simple to me: Nycarchitecture212 does not accept the reliability of sources according to any coherent criterion. The primary person who deals with the effects of this is User:tgeorgescu, who I more or less agree with in that this has to stop. It's a waste of everyone's time. Remsense诉 00:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who lives in the woods upstate, beyond even Westchester County, I beg for the forgiveness of the fine confederation of editors slowly but surely producing a 1∶1 model of NYC in wikitext form. Since everyone seems agree that Nycarchitecture212 is fully capable of editing constructively with other subjects, I want to make explicit that I've changed my own !vote to a topic ban from Judaism, broadly construed. Remsense诉 02:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the quote in Masechet Megilla, there are also other works that further explain it. Cyrus was never thought of as messiah and while an academic can argue that in a book it doesn't belong prominently in the header of an article about Jewish beliefs. I am here to add value not get heat from the same 4-5 people. Not sure why you can't be more friendly and helpful, assuming good faith and explaining why you believe I am incorrect, instead of describing my edits thus far as a waste of time which is not true. I don't edit about things I don't know, and think my perspective and contributions adds value to these articles and have been thanked for it already. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Agree with Objective3000: Nycarchitecture212 believes that only one book is true about the Hebrew Bible, and all WP:IS about Jewish beliefs should be removed from Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, was going to suggest something softer such as a commitment not to blank text or to cite the Talmund, but looking into it this has been ongoing since July 2023, and such actions continue despite many subsequent warnings, and one partial block. No action was taken after a recent ANI, so it should happen now. I would also suggest a preventative block be lifted only with some agreement on a topic ban as suggested at the end of that ANI thread. CMD (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose across-the-board indef, support topic ban on Jewish topics. Nycarchitecture212 also edits New York City architecture articles; I'm unaware of any controversy with these. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. We don't have a policy against users holding private religious beliefs, whether about the Hebrew Bible or something else, and some of the comments in this thread have read as if over-dependent on emphasizing/asserting such beliefs as if personal belief is necessarily inculpatory and as if extrapolating from them beyond what we strictly know about Nycarchitecture212. Also, it's of course true that our articles are based on the findings of reliable secondary sources; however, strictly speaking WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY apply to what we put in articles, not to our reasons for doing so or to what we say on other pages. It isn't wrong on its face to object to the inclusion of material by arguing that the cited source is misinterpreting the primary source. If memory serves, Grand Central Terminal for a long time had a problem of secondary sources regurgitating a hoax about the ceiling mural. That said I agree that the reported user's deletions and, crucially, their non-responsiveness to feedback are issues. Additionally, in humanities topics like religious studies and textual interpretation (including biblical interpretation) I think our community of editors are too often tempted to think we know significantly better than the published scholarship, and this results in excessive "correction" of scholars and the exclusion of material that is validly due. Since deletion is evidently the problem, I would support a more tailored sanction that places restrictions on deletions for Nycarchitecture212. Perhaps a sanction against deleting material from articles about Jewish topics, or material that has citations. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "strictly speaking WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY apply to what we put in articles" is part of the issue as provided in one of the opening diffs. CMD (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct: I do not condemn Nycarchitecture212 for holding private religious beliefs. What they believe and practice outside of Wikipedia is not our concern. I only reported their edits, not their religion. There used to be WP:CIR#Bias-based or something like that. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To CMD, thank you for pointing that out; I got too caught up in the thread and missed that there was an addition in the diffs. I am now more supportive of a topically oriented sanction but remain opposed to an indef.
      To tgeorgescu, I'm certainly glad you don't condemn Nycarchitecture212 for private religious beliefs, and I tried to focus my observations on how the comments about Nycarchitecture212 read rather than on what a user might believe. I'll add that yes, you only reported their edits; it was your !vote that seemed more preoccupied than necessary with justification based on averring the user believes that only one book is true about the Hebrew Bible, when that's not necessarily relevant to the behavioral matter. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At [278] under Examples, there is Bias-based. So, specifying their religious bias does not mean I attacked their religious beliefs. I have a couple of articles where I cannot work because of my bias, but I simply chose not to edit those articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Essays can be useful and persuasive, but they are not guidelines or policies. This essay has since been revised to remove that criterion, and there may be reasons for having done so. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you point to any examples where an editor emphasized Nycarchitecture212's private (or public!) beliefs, rather than directly commenting on their contributions and stated views about site policy? This has not happened once, as far as I can tell. Their pattern of content contributions is the only thing I find unacceptable—I genuinely do not care if an editor punctuates every sentence by glorifying God, in fact I would find that to be quite lovely. Remsense诉 17:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The first visible !vote in this subthread led with the claim Nycarchitecture212 believes that only one book is true about the Hebrew Bible. Further up in the thread are statements like a valid point, but it indiscriminately applies to each and every book (except your own, of course) and You seem to think that the Talmud is the only game in town. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was inexact earlier—this is frankly a fair analysis of their editorial behavior, and one that is only concerned with the content of their edits. What other conclusion is one supposed to draw from their contribution history? Remsense诉 01:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      One can draw the conclusion that the user has a pattern of excising content cited to secondary academic sources, defending such cuts with claims (with which other editors in the community disagree) that the scholarship misinterpreted the primary sources, and adding content cited to primary sources instead of secondary sources; drawing this conclusion about the user's pattern of disruptive behavior (and the community's need to halt it) doesn't require editorializing about possible beliefs or motives for the behavior or referring to such as either a reason for sanction or a shorthand for reasons for sanction. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban, not indef. Hydrangeans' argument is correct. Zerotalk 08:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indefinite block but support topic ban on Judaism, broadly construed The Talmud is a roughly 1500 year old source that is abstruse, prone to exaggeration and highly figurative. Orthodox Jewish scholars build careers on interpreting and debating its arcane teachings. No way under the sun should its translated passages be cited as a reliable source. Instead, citations to modern scholars of all denominations of Judaism, plus secular scholars, including especially scholars of comparative religion, should always be preferred when editing this encyclopedia, which is not "TraditionalJudaismPedia" but something very different, with an explicit preference for citing the work of modern mainstream scholarship. The neutral point of view is a core content policy that is mandatory and non-negotiable. If the editor's work on New York architecture does not consist of tendentious axe-grinding, then they should be encouraged to edit in that topic area, and other areas unrelated to Judaism where they are capable of contributing neutrally. Cullen328 (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Cullen's eloquent recommendation of a topic ban from Judaism above (it should be indefinite, which I suppose was also Cullen's intention). Perhaps I should mention my own previous involvement with Nycarchitecture: I page-blocked them from Yosef Mizrachi in October 2023 for "long-term edit warring, violations of neutral point of view, filibustering, and generally wasting other editors' time", per this ANI discussion. It might also be worth mentioning that they were formally warned as an arbitration enforcement action just a few days ago to "avoid mischaracterizing the statements of other editors or otherwise casting aspersions". That was about aspersions against Tgeorgescu at WP:AE. Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    • Topic ban on Judaism, broadly construed. I don't really agree with Tgeorgescu's interpretation here of NycArchitecture as a Talmud-first type, but if anything the actual state may be worse. I ran across this user coincidentally, with an edit they made after being reported to ANI (diff), where they flat removed a part of Jewish history that is ugly by modern standards with no edit summary. If there hadn't been a page watcher (me) they may well have gotten away with it. But this isn't a case of editing according to the Talmud; the Talmud & co. are actually quite ambivalent on the Hasmoneans and has no problem trashing them for stuff about them they didn't like. And the Hasmoneans themselves were proud of this particular bit, recording it in their court history. So this is just a pure modern ethics touch-up in defiance of all sources, both historical and religious. SnowFire (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on Judaism, broadly construed per A.B., Hydrangeans, Zero, Cullen, Bishonen and SnowFire. This would be the community's way of letting NYArc know that we are not opposed to their contributions here, so long as they have absolutely nothing to do with Judaism — an area in which they have proven themselves, over and over again, to be utterly incapable of editing in a neutral and collaborative manner. As others have mentioned above, many other websites exist (including but not limited to Hamichlol, if they know Hebrew) which cater to their specific worldview, and undoubtedly would welcome their input there. Havradim leaf a message 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Judaism, broadly construed per everyone above. Wikipedia has no need for people who disrupt the already contentious religious subject areas and refuse to amend their behavior, but blocking someone indefinitely for a localize issue is almost certainly inappropriate. I particularly concur with SnowFire's appraisal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from all religious articles I see no need at this time for a full block. NYC architecture can keep one busy for quite a while. But it's difficult to see how an editor with such strong beliefs in one area of religion can be useful on anything religious. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      it's difficult to see how an editor with such strong beliefs in one area of religion can be useful on anything religious—I'd wonder if that's necessarily the case. Do we have a reason to think the user's pattern of believing (contrary to the assessment of the community of editors) that secondary sources have misinterpreted primary sources in Judaism would influence behavior toward articles about Hinduism or Buddhism? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on Judaism, broadly construed per, well, almost all of the above, coming in late I don't have anything to add except except that I've been watching this editor for a while and am not surprised it has come to this. I don't think a wider religion topic ban is needed or justified now, but if problems with editing matters relating to other religions occur I'd want to see one sooner rather than later. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Brotherly account

    Pprr0210 has only one edit, but has the same behavior. See [279]. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Could be a meatpuppet, not a sock so far as I can tell. Doug Weller talk 16:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Persistent cast vandalism by IP series

    Special:Contributions/111.92.26.211, Special:Contributions/111.92.31.163, Special:Contributions/111.92.28.91, Special:Contributions/111.92.28.67

    • The IP series has been habitually vandalizing the cast order of Mohanlal films by downgrading his position. Other IPs in the range are doing the same in other articles of the actor as well. This individual is a pro-Mammootty and anti-Mohanlal fan, exhibiting toxic behavior by diminishing the latter's importance. This vandalism has been ongoing on Mohanlal pages for years. Many of the IPs and ranges involved have been previously blocked. Now, they have extended the vandalism to Mohanlal's son Pranav's film as well - [280][281]. Please implement a range block.--2409:4073:486:C41:DC58:78FE:F5F0:5065 (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1218231918"