Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1176

Edit warring to prevent an RFC

@Axad12 has removed an RFC tag from Talk:Breyers#Request for comment on propylene glycol now twice within an hour.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs provides a list of circumstances under which you can stop an RFC started by someone else, and disagreeing with the question or wishing that it contained additional information is not in the list.

We have to be pretty strict about this, because an RFC is one of the few ways to attract the broader community's attention when there's an Wikipedia:Ownership of content problem or a Wikipedia:Walled garden that needs outside attention. The fact that an editor doesn't welcome outside attention sometimes indicates that there is a problem. I'm not saying that these things are happening in this case, but the rules have to be the rules for all RFCs, not just for the ones we agree with, because these things do happen in some cases. We can't really have opponents of an RFC question/proposal, no matter how well intentioned or how justified they think it is in this one case, unilaterally deciding that the rest of the community doesn't get to find out about the dispute.

I wouldn't bother with this here, except that it's already past my bedtime, so I need someone else to handle this. The proper way forward is to run the RFC, and for the loyal opposition to take the advice about how to respond that they'll find in the first two questions of the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. See you tomorrow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

As previously explained elsewhere, I removed the tag because my understanding is that the serious COI issues invalidate the RfC.

I am perfectly happy to take instruction on that point if I am incorrect but the removals were undertaken in good faith.

The idea that I should be reported to ANI for this just because it is past someone's bedtime (and they don't have time for talk page discussion) seems to me rather an over-reaction. Axad12 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I am perfectly happy to volunteer to replace the tag if an administrator indicates that that is the appropriate course of action. Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Axad12, please do not tamper with the RFC. I have already commented there again based on my previous assessment five weeks ago, and I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter. In my opinion, you are taking too aggressive a stance on this issue. I happen to be an administrator but I am also involved with the dispute as an ordinary editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Axad12, I'd strongly suggest you return the tag. WhatamIdoing, a {{trout}} for WP:GRENADEing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your advice. I will shortly replace the template.

The COI issue does not relate to Cullen, it relates to another user entirely. I would be grateful for input on the underlying COI issue, which seems to me to have been an exceptionally serious abuse. Axad12 (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What? A company quite reasonably does not want to be falsely accused of adulterating their edible product with antifreeze, based on what a fringe source wrote, and you consider that exceptionally serious abuse? Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to the series of events outlined here [1] where a paid COI editor has a COI edit request turned down and then starts cultivating a co-operative project member to implement non-contentious COI edit requests before reintroducing the contentious COI edit request and immediately tipping off their repeatedly canvassed project member to implement that contentious request.

I feel that that is an exceptionally serious abuse - clearly it is an attempt to distort the COI editing process by attempting to make sure that a previously co-operative project member deals with a resubmitted request rather than waiting for a random volunteer working out of the relevant queue (one of whom had previously declined the request).

As I said above, I am quite happy to take instruction on this point - but personally I feel that what happened there was highly inappropriate. Axad12 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In other words, you want highly misleading content to remain in the article, just to make a point? Cullen328 (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Cullen, my post directly above is clearly about a point of process rather than a point of content.

Even if the original COI edit request was incorrectly declined that would not justify the paid COI editor attempting to game the system to get the request through at the second time of asking. Axad12 (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

"Asking a second time" is not WP:Gaming the system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, but for a COI user to attempt to influence which user will deal with the second request does constitute gaming the system. Axad12 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Read the guideline instead of guessing about its contents from the WP:UPPERCASE. See, e.g., An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policy in bad faith, by finding within its wording some apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support. Asking an individual to help has nothing to do with finding wording in a policy to justifying disruptive actions or stances that are not intended in that policy.

I also direct your attention to the item that says Gaming the system may include...Filibustering the consensus-building process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I was using the phrase 'gaming the system' in it's natural application (not specifically referring to WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM, which I didn't know existed until you linked to it above). Clearly the COI user was attempting to distort the COI edit request process in some way - whether one refers to what they were doing as 'gaming the system' or some other similar phrase is neither here nor there. Axad12 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Also worth noting that ever since the original COI edit request back in August the clear talk page consensus has been that the material should remain within the article and is not highly misleading.

I've been part of that consensus position since approx October/November. Since that time the user who opened the RfC has repeatedly been opening new threads, continually trying to re-address a subject where they are repeatedly in the minority and presumably hoping that those who previously opposed them do not turn up to oppose them again. Axad12 (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should hold an RFC on whether the RFC tag should be there? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Right, I've had breakfast now so am in a position to make a more serious reply. This is a content issue (on which I hold, as yet, no opinion). On this page we often tell editors that the way to settle a content issue that hasn't been settled by more informal methods is by holding an RFC. Axad12, you should express your opinion as part of the RFC, not oppose holding it. By your behaviour you are turning people against you who might have supported you. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've already said that I'd be happy to replace the tag if instructed to do so, and upon being instructed to do so I immediately replaced it. As far as I can see that issue is now resolved.

I've asked for comment on the underlying COI issue, which is not a content issue. Axad12 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

RFCs can handle COI issues. In fact, when WP:COIN can't resolve a dispute, they sometimes host an RFC to settle it. The nice thing about an RFC in such situations is that if it closes with an outcome like "The consensus is stick it to these fully policy-compliant, completely disclosed paid editors by making sure that this article implies the company's product was adulterated with a poisonous industrial chemical, just because we found one fad diet book that used this language, because it's really unreasonable of them to not want sensationalist and derogatory information in our article about their product" then you can generally be sure that the result will stick for at least 6 months and usually longer.

But you've got to get that consensus first, and I'm not sure you will. For one thing, it's been my not-inconsiderable experience that when someone objects to holding an RFC because the question is biased, that's a fairly reliable sign that they expect the RFC result to not match their preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

My concern (rightly or wrongly) was simply that there was a COI element to the request which had not been disclosed. I swiftly requested clarification on that point and upon receiving that clarification I immediately reverted myself.

It isn't really relevant here but actually I didn't expect the RfC to develop contrary to my preference. That was because the previous 4 months had indicated a consistent consensus opposing what the instigator of the RfC was proposing. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I don't actually have a particularly strong preference one way or the other on the issue at stake - I've simply consistently observed during November and December that the consensus was against Zefr, which seemed to me to be a simple matter of fact based on the various talk page threads from August to December. Axad12 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• On matters concerning the Breyers article, Axad12 has been an uncollaborative, disruptive, and hostile editor tag-teamed with Graywalls, who is the main proponent over months of using the slur, "antifreeze", to describe a minor GRAS ingredient that is the subject of the current RfC. Both users have ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate for a factual, well-sourced article. Both users refused collaboration on the Breyers article content at DRN.

Having never contributed a sentence or source to the Breyers article, Axad12 has blatantly reverted simple, sourced edits claiming a false consensus which has no good source to support the propylene glycol/"antifreeze" claim and no evidence of consensus input by other editors over the last many weeks. An evolving consensus on the RfC is to exclude mention of propylene glycol as undue.

Scientific and legal literature concerning propylene glycol (article link) placed on the talk page have been ignored by both users, without attempts to discuss or apply what any objective editor reading the sources would agree are authoritative.

Proposal: Because of Axad12's hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC, tag-team behavior with Graywalls on the Breyers article edits, canvassing each other on its talk page, and here, as another example, Axad12 and Graywalls should be A-banned from the Breyers article and its talk page.

• Support. Zefr (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Strike as withdrawn for Axad12 ABAN to concur with Cullen328 and the oppose decisions below.

Graywalls is a separate case remaining undecided here. Over the 2024 article and talk page history at Breyers, this user was the main purveyor of disinformation, and has not acknowledged his talk page hostility and errors of judgment, despite abundant presentation of facts, sources, explanations, and challenges for information below. Graywalls should commit to abstain from editing the Breyers article for a given period, as Axad has done. Zefr (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zefr:, your domineering and territoriality to that article is a big part of escalation and if anyone, it should be you who should refrain from it. Blatantly disregarding consensus and going so far as saying Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus. as done in here which goes to show you feel you're above consensus. You weren't persuaded until you were corrected by two administrors Aoidh and Philknight on the matter on the belief you're entitled to insert certain things against consensus. You also were blocked for the fifth time for edit warring in that article, with previous ones being at different articles with dispute with other editors, which shows your lack of respect for community decision making. Graywalls (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, your concept of what was a false consensus has been dismissed by the RfC result, so you should move on from this bitterness and distortion of truth. In reply to Aoidh and Philknight at the Breyers talk page, I stated in my next comment, "Yes, a key word unintentionally omitted in my response concerning statements and sources was "verifiable". As there are few watchers/editors of the Breyers article (62 as of today, probably many from Unilever who do not edit), I provided statements of facts verified by reliable sources, whereas this simple practice appears to not be in your editing toolkit.

The obligation remaining with you in this discussion is to respond to Cullen's 2-paragraph summary of your behavior below in the section, The actual content that led to this dispute. Let's have your response to that, and your pledge to abstain from editing the Breyers article - you did say on the talk page on 29 Nov that you would "delegate the actual editing to someone else." I think your defiance to respond to challenges in this discussion section affirms my recommendation that you are ABANNED from the Breyers article and IBANNED from attacking me because you are unable to face the facts. Zefr (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It was a no commitment suggestion that someone, meaning neither YOU or I. Not that Zefr continue editing and not I. Your controlling, WP:OWN approach was a significant portion of the problem. Additionally, you proposed administrative sanctions against me, but did not tell me about it as required. I only figured out after someone told me about it on my talk page. Why did you do that? Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You had already been notified of the problem you caused at the Breyers article in this talk edit on 5 Jan. Now, you are engaged in conspicuous deflection to avoid answering the Cullen328 paragraphs and the several requests for you to explain and own up to your disruptive behavior and non-collaboration. Regarding OWN, there are few editors at Breyers. I countered your attempts to slander the article with the "antifreeze" term and bogus diet book references by applying verifiable facts and sources.

OWN:"Being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. This too does not equal ownership, provided it does not marginalise the valid opinions of others and is adequately justified." If you had offered valid content and sources, I would have collaborated.

I'm sure editors have seen enough of your personal grievances expressed here. Please stop. I'm not returning unless an exception occurs. Zefr (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• You need to notify Graywalls of this discussion. I have done so for you. In the future, remember to do so yourself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oppose: I have reverted Zefr on 3 occasions on the Breyers article over the last few months. That was because the edits they had made were, at that time, contrary to talk page consensus. The fact that I had not contributed to the article is neither here nor there in that regard.

  I have not ignored requests on the talk page to collaborate, I have simply objected to Zefr's repeated attempts over a 3 month period to re-open a discussion where the consensus has always been against them.

  Six different users have previously objected to the changes Zefr has been trying to make and that was clearly a majority of those who commented between August and December 2024.

  I accept that the current RfC is going Zefr's way, however that fact should not be used to reinterpret events over the last 4 months where Zefr has historically been in a small minority insufficient to claim a consensus in favour of the changes they wished to make.

  Also, the idea that I made a hostile attempt to revert a legitimate RfC is untrue. As I have pointed out above, my actions were in good faith and it can be seen that I immediately volunteered to revert my removal of the template if I received instruction from an admin to that effect.

  I cannot see that I was ever canvassed to appear at the Breyers talk page, I arrived there entirely independently back in November having been aware of the ongoing situation re: the various COI edit requests because the COI edit request queue is the volunteer queue that I spend most of my time here working from. I've probably read pretty much every COI edit request that has been made on Wikipedia over the last 6 to 12 months and there are a small number of talk pages that I look at from time to time.

  Graywalls and I work on similar cases and sometimes we find ourselves working alongside each other, especially if material has been discussed at WP:COIN, but occasionally ending up in the same place and on the same side of an argument does not entail tagteaming. Axad12 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I was the one who suggested RfC in the first place. here, because I felt it was not a productive disagreement anymore. Leading up to the RfC, there was rough talk page consensus to include a mention pf propylene glycol, but if consensus in RfC determines that it should be left out, I have no intention of fighting it. Someone raised a concern there was only one source, so I added another source. Other than this, I've not really touched contentious parts of this article recently. I'm not sure why Axad12 removed the RfC and I can't speak for their actions, but the accusation of Tagteam is unwarranted. I've taken deferent steps to not continue to engage in back and forth edit warring and I'd like to believe that I'm approaching this the correct way. I do want to bring up concerns about Zefr's civility though. Please see User_talk:DMacks#Breyers_disruptive_editing for some concerns I raised. I also find leaving snarky comment about being a PhD student who disagreed on contents troubling Special:Diff/1261441062. @Aoidh: also felt Zefr was "weaponing" claims of edit warring to restore their "preferred version" earlier on in the dispute. Please see Special:Diff/1257252695 Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Graywalls, I think you were correct to recommend an RFC. Hopefully the RFC will reach a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'd just like to echo that sentiment. I'm all in favour of consensus.

  My position on this article hasn't been motivated by a partisan view on Propylene Glycol but has simply been in relation to serving the consensus position as it stood at the time. That is the approach I hope I adopt on all Wikipedia articles. If the consensus alters on this article (as seems likely) then I'll adopt the same approach in relation to serving the new consensus.

  My primary area of interest on this website is COI issues. I'm simply not interested in content disputes or in pushing any kind of POV on Wikipedia. I'm not the sort of user who flagrantly disregards a newly emerging consensus by editing contrary to the outcome of an RfC.

  I'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that going forwards (i.e. without an article ban). Axad12 (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  • The mention by Graywalls for an RfC on 27 Dec had no influence on the one existing. As an uncomplicated process, an editor truly sincere in having community input would have posed a simple objective question. Graywalls, why didn't you take 5 minutes and create the RfC question you wanted? What would have been your RfC question?

  Specifically for propylene glycol (you are still defending its use in the article by adding another garbage source yesterday - see comments about this book in the RfC): what do you believe propylene glycol does in a frozen dessert and what would you prefer the article to say about propylene glycol? I have asked for this clarification on the talk page many times and in the DRN, but you ignored the opportunity to collaborate and clarify.

  Have you read the sources in this talk page topic?

  Your reverts in article history and combative talk page behavior over months revealed a persistent intent to disparage the Breyers article, focus on the "antifreeze" slur (mainly promoting this source), and restore a skeletal version having no sources more recent than 2018 here, after tag-teaming with Axad12 to do your bidding on 17 Nov. That version also has misinformation under the section 'Ice cream', falsely stating that Breyers changed their ice cream ingredients by using other additives, which in fact, were used to evolve a new category of frozen desserts not intended to be ice cream. I believe you know this, but you and Axad12 persisted to favor misinformation for the article.

  The RfC I provided came from steps in the lead of WP:RFC: 1) generally poor talk page progress, where one editor seeking facts verified by current sources was opposed by Graywalls, Adax12, and NutmegCoffeeTea, all defending a version including "antifreeze"; 2) an RSN post here where Graywalls argued that a web link by the Seattle PI made the Motley Fool article an RS; 3) initiate DRN for which Graywalls, Axad12, and NutmegCoffeeTea abstained from collaboration to improve the article; 4) providing a science- and law-based talk page topic on 19 Dec, which appears to be willfully ignored by Axad12 and Graywalls, who responded only with hostility and defiance against the facts; 5) seeking third opinions from admins, first by BD2412 (talk page on 29-30 Nov) and by DMacks on 27 Dec, resulting in verbose trolling by these two users. Axad12's response on 27 Dec was to revert constructive edits and tag-team with Graywalls.

  Axad12 and Graywalls should be ABANNED from the Breyers article for exhibiting 1) hostility on the talk page to good faith proposals for making the article better, and 2) persistence to perpetuate misinformation on propylene glycol. Simply, what history shows that either editor has tried to improve the Breyers article? Both users meet most of the definitions of WP:NOTHERE for the article, its talk page, and the RfC. Zefr (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Zefr, I've already indicated on several occasions that I welcome and support the developing new consensus. Graywalls has made a similar comment below. That being the case, I don't really see what purpose an article ban would be intended to serve.

  Admittedly there has been some quite heated disagreement over recent months, but it seems that we all now have the robust talkpage consensus that we were hoping for in one way or another and that all three of us are happy to move forward in support of that consensus.

  You were clearly in the minority for quite a long time and I can appreciate that you found that experience frustrating. However, to continue to make allegations above of bad faith, trolling, tagteaming, etc. about those who constituted the valid majority for several months is just an attempt to perpetuate strife on an issue which is now, as far as I can see, satisfactorily resolved. Axad12 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Filed under: sometimes you hurt articles by treating COI editors as the enemy. The problem here is two users who should really know better edit-warring over the course of months to reinstate TikTok diet influencer silliness into a Wikipedia article, repeatedly reinstating WP:PROFRINGE content (implicitly, if not explicitly). We currently treat a little "avoid antifreeze" bubble in a diet book (which includes Breyers in a list of brands) and a book published by one of RFK Jr's antivax publishers as WP:DUE for including the insinuation that an FDA-approved and much-conspiratorialized additive is harmful. They've been repeatedly removed, but two editors keep putting them back, whether because of a misunderstanding of WP:MEDRS/WP:FRINGE or in pursuit of COI purification. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I take your point but I think you're misjudging the situation somewhat. Prior to the opening of the current RfC it was approximately 6 or 7 users in favour of inclusion vs 3 or 4 favouring exclusion. I only reverted the attempts at exclusion because those attempts were contrary to the talk page consensus.

  I'm perfectly open to the suggestion that that consensus position was wrong but the simple fact of the matter was that there was at that time no consensus in favour of exclusion.

  It has only been in the last couple of days that the requesting editor has been able to demonstrate a consensus in favour of exclusion. And that's great, I have no problem with that at all. In fact I welcome it.

  My understanding is that editors wishing to make changes to article text should not do so if there is a consensus against what they are trying to do, and that under such circumstances an edit can be (indeed should be) reverted. If I'm mistaken on that score then I'm perfectly happy to take instruction. However, I really want to stress that my actions were based primarily upon that reasoning and were made in good faith. Axad12 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Axad12, you should not revert something because other editors want it to be reverted. You should only make content changes that you personally support. This is necessary for BRD to work. See WP:BRDREVERT for an explanation of why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites:, the antifreeze matter is WP:DEADHORSE since I believe everyone's pretty much agreed it doesn't need to be in there. Zefr has taken issues with me, Axad12, NutMegCoffee and possibly some others. They've tried to get the article "set in place" to their preferred version, but that was declined admin Daniel Case who determined it to be content dispute Special:Diff/1260192461. Zefr inferring alleging I was "uncooperative" not collaborating/cooperating in the way that he was hoping in DR, but I don't believe that to be so. There was nothing intentional on my part to not cooperate. I'll see if @Robert McClenon: would like to share their observation on that since they closed the dispute.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breyers/Archive_2#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 here's another uninvolved editoring erring on the side of inclusion. A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus. Reading through the current plus the archived discussions, up until the RfC, the general consensus is in support of having PG mention and Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus. As I mentioned, if consensus changes with the RfC, I'm not opposed to going with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (adjusted Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC))

  For the record, I never stated the word "uncooperative" at DRN or the Breyers talk page, but rather "non-collaborative", as discussed in the thread with Robert McClenon below.

  "Set in place to their preferred version" and "Zefr's preferred version shouldn't trump consensus" should be translated to using "facts verified by reliable sources", which is the simple goal for the Breyers article that Graywalls has obstructed over months.

  It's incredible that Graywalls says even today above, knowing the comments on the RfC and months of being presented with facts and sources about why propylene glycol is safely used in thousands of manufactured foods: "A one sentence mention of propylene glycol isn't something that is out of line and as others have mentioned, it falls under contents dispute and thus the choice to leave in/out rests on consensus."

  Here's your chance to tell everyone:

  Why do you feel propylene glycol was used in Breyers frozen desserts (in 2013, not since)? What concern do you have about it, and what government or scientific source says it's unsafe in the amounts regulated by federal laws? Give a sentence here that you think meets consensus and uses a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're right, you did not use that specific word. I've corrected my response due to wording. Graywalls (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

A Non-Mediator's Statement

I am not entirely sure why User:Graywalls has pinged me about this dispute, saying that I "closed this dispute". The accuracy of the statement that I "closed this dispute" depends on what is meant by "this dispute".

I closed the DRN thread, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_252#Breyers, on 12 December. I obviously didn't resolve a dispute that has been continuing for another three weeks, and the claim that I closed the dispute looks to me like an attempt to confuse the jury. User:Zefr had opened the DRN thread on 3 December, complaining about the insertion of the word antifreeze and of the mention of propylene glycol. I was not entirely sure beyond the mention of antifreeze what the issues were. There were questions about what the procedure was for handling a one-against-many dispute; I think that Zefr was said to be the one. There was a long question that may have been about whether DRN is voluntary; DRN is voluntary. Then Zefr said that the case could be withdrawn because no one else was commenting. The disputants other than Zefr never did say exactly what the article content issues were, perhaps because they didn't want to discuss article content, and were not required to discuss article content. If anyone is implying that I resolved or settled anything, I have no idea what it was.

I see that the dispute either was continuing in other forums for three weeks, or has reopened. I see that User:Axad12 edit-warred to prevent an RFC from running, making vague but noisy statements about conflict of interest. I don't know who is said to be working for Unilever or for anyone else. It is clear that this dispute is longer on antagonism than on clarity. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I pinged you, because I felt you'd be a good commentator to evaluate whether you also felt I was "not cooperative" in the process as Zefr says. I tried to participate, but it got closed shortly after I posted a comment in it. Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Was that purposely mis-stated to be provocative and mislead the discussion here?

I said you were non-collaborative, which describes your behavior throughout your editing history on the Breyers article, its talk page, and the DRN. You refused collaboration at DRN, which is the whole point of the process. DRN FAQ: "refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building."

You were notified about the DRN on your talk page on 3 Dec, and you posted a general notice about it on the Breyers talk page on 6 Dec, so you were aware of the process, but ignored it. Meanwhile, your editing history over 6-12 Dec shows dozens of edits, including many on the Breyers talk page.

You made no attempt to collaborate at DRN, posting only one off-topic comment on 12 Dec.

I requested closure of the DRN on 12 Dec due to non-participation by you and the others. On 13 Dec, I notified the Breyers talk page of the DRN closure. cc: Robert McClenon. Zefr (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zefr:, As been said to you by others, participation is not mandatory. Other editors are not required to and you shouldn't reasonably expect them to prioritize their real life schedule or their Wikipedia time on dispute that you runs on your own schedule to your DRN you started around your own schedule on your own terms. I have initially waited to give others time to comment as their time allows. I'm also not particularly fond of your berating, incivil, bad faith assuming comments directed at myself, as well as a few other editors and it's exhausting discussing with you, so I'm not feeling particularly compelled to give your matters priority in my Wikipedia time. Graywalls (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

A Possibly Requested Detail

Okay. If the question is specifically whether User:Graywalls was uncooperative at DRN, then I can state that they were not uncooperative and did not obstruct or disrupt DRN. Graywalls took very little part in the DRN proceeding before I closed it. They were not required to take part, although they say that they would have made a statement if the case had stayed open a little longer. The antagonism that I saw was between User:Zefr and User:Axad12, and I collapsed an exchange between them. I did not read what I am told were long previous discussions, because I expect the disputants at DRN to begin by telling me concisely what each of them wants to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Graywalls was not uncooperative at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. User:Zefr is making a slightly different statement, that User:Graywalls did not collaborate at DRN. That is correct. And I noted above that their mention that I had closed the dispute depended on what was meant by the "dispute". and looked like an attempt to confuse the jury. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Zefr did not use the word uncooperative although did say uncollaborative and I used the two interchangeably in my ping. I did participate in it Special:Diff/1262763079. I haven't participated in DRN until that point, so I wasn't really sure how it worked. Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The actual content that led to this dispute

Two month ago, Breyers included this shockingly bad content: As of 2014, some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contains propylene glycol as an additive. Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze and it is clear fluid made by "treating propylene with chlorinated water to form the chlorohydrin, which is then converted to the glycol, an alcohol, by treating it with a sodium carbonate solution." Propylene glycol is formulated into Breyer's fat-free and Carb Smart ice cream to make it easier to scoop. The notion that an article about an ice cream company should include a detailed description of how a Generally recognized as safe food additive is manufactured is bizarre enough, as is the cherrypicked and glaringly misleading assertion about "antifreeze", but the reference used to support the Breyers claim was a book called Eat It to Beat It!: Banish Belly Fat-and Take Back Your Health-While Eating the Brand-Name Foods You Love! written by a quack/crank diet profiteer named David Zinczenko. I invite any editor to take a search engine look at Zinczenko's body of work, and come away with the conclusion that his writings are anything other than fringe and unreliable. Despite the glaringly obviously non-neutral and tendentious problems with this shockingly bad content, editors including most prominently Graywalls and Axad12 dug in their heels, fighting a reargard action for nearly two months, determined to make this mundane routine ice cream company look as bad as possible. Their self-justification seems to be that big bad corporations have no right whatsover to try to remove atrociously bad content about their products from Wikipedia, and that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association. I am not an advocate for corporations per se, but I am an advocate for corporations being treated neutrally like all other topics, rather with disdain and contempt, which was the case here, as I see it. I do not know what the best outcome is here, but I certainly encourage these two editors to refrain from any other unjustified and poorly referenced anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

A striking and shocking aspect of this sordid situation is that two editors, Graywalls and Axad12 were able to concoct a false "consensus" supporting various versions of this garbage content. And then when another editor tried to start a RFC about the appallingly bad content, Axad12 tried over and over and over again to stop the RFC and defend the atrocious content rather than correcting it, aided and abetted by Graywalls. When the RFC actually went live, it soon became clear that many editors agreed that the content these two editors advocated for was utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Cullen,

As per my comments above, my motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. I did not concoct that consensus, at least 5 users other than me were against excluding the material.

I have never had any particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the content issue and I try as best as I can not to get involved in content disputes. I have not dug in [my] heels or attempted to promote any kind of fringe opinion and nor have I engaged in anti-corporate diatribes that go on for months on end.

Similarly I do not hold the view that any editor who tries to assist the evil corporation is also evil by association, or any opinion even vaguely resembling that view. On the contrary, I have often implemented COI edit requests on behalf of corporations or have pointed out to corporate employees how such requests would need to be amended to conform with sourcing or other requirements. Repeatedly engaging in that activity would presumably make me very evil indeed, in my own eyes, if I held the view that you attribute to me.

I reverted the Breyer edits in good faith because there was no consensus in favour of them. If I was incorrect on a point of policy in that regard then fair enough, however please do not attempt to attribute to me sentiments which I do not harbour.

Also, I did not attempt to stop the RfC over and over and over again. I removed the tag twice, then requested guidance from administrators and immediately replaced the tag when requested to do so. The tag was removed, in all, for a matter of minutes and had no meaningful impact on the progress of the RfC. I have accepted elsewhere that I now appreciate that the basis on which I removed the tag was inappropriate. I have also stated that From my standpoint [RfC] wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes. I have also stated that I welcome and support the new consensus. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Try as you will to justify your participation in this debacle , Axad12, but any uninvolved editor can review the edit histories and see that you fought very hard, over and over again for months, to keep garbage content in the encyclopedia just to stick it to a corporation that you obviously dislike because they tried to correct egregious errors about their products. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff there to indicate that I obviously dislike Breyers or (their parent company) Unilever, or indeed that I consider either to be evil?

To the best of my recollection, I've only ever made 3 mainspace edits to the Breyers article - each time on the stated basis in the edit summary that the edit I was reverting was contrary to consensus.

I've re-read the extensive talk page discussions in recent days and I can only see that I ever commented on the COI angle and the nature of the consensus. Those comments were based on my understanding of policy at the time. I do not see anti-corporate diatribes or evidence that I obviously dislike Breyers or Unilever.

Indeed, I do not hold any particularly strong views on Breyers, Unilever or any other corporations. Axad12 (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said, Axad12, all any uninvolved editor needs to do is review your 37 edits to Talk: Breyers to see how determined you have been over the last two months to maintain various versions of this biased non-neutral content, and how enthusiastic you have been in denouncing the various editors who have been calling for neutrality. Your consistent theme has been that a corporation does not deserve neutrality, because a bogus consensus has been conjured up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My activity on that talk page has solely been in relation to pointing out what I felt (rightly or wrongly) was a valid COI concern and observing that from Aug to Dec there has never been a consensus in favour of exclusion.

Anything beyond that is simply you attributing motives that do not exist.

I have never stated or implied that a corporation does not deserve neutrality and nor do I hold such a view.

I happily admit that I'm quite animated and enthusiastic about COI issues and reverting edits which appear to be contrary to consensus. With the benefit of hindsight probably I should have let go of those issues at an earlier stage and vacated the field for those who actually had an appetite to argue on content grounds.

I'd also point out that for a significant part of the last 2 months I had actually unsubscribed from the relevant talkpage threads and only ended up getting involved again due to being summoned to the Dispute Resolution thread. If I had been determined [...] over the last two months to maintain various versions of [...] biased non-neutral content then hopefully it stands to reason that I would not have unsubscribed in that way - thus resulting in a situation where I was actually completely unaware of much of the talkpage and mainspace activity over the period that you refer to. Axad12 (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I find the defense of your actions very weak. You've said several times that your motivation was simply in reflecting the consensus on the talk page at the time. You are also obligated to actually look at the disputed content and the sources supporting it. Why didn't you do that? Why were you unable to see what multiple editors in the RfC are commenting about? You shouldn't just blindly revert content like that, without taking a look for yourself to see if the complaint about the disputed content has any merit, like it being reliably sourced and due for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a very fair question.

The answer is that I was inclined to believe the opinions of editors much more experienced than myself who were against exclusion, particularly the editor who turned down the original COI edit request (whose work on COI edit requests I have the greatest of respect for).

User Whatamidoing has already pointed out above that my error lay in accepting those users' opinions. I agree with Whatamidoing's observation there.

I can only say that what I did was done in good faith based on my understanding of policy at the time. I now know where I erred (in several different ways) and I am glad to have received instruction in that regard.

However, I really cannot accept the repeated suggestion that I vindictively masterminded a long anti-corporate campaign to keep bad material in an article. That suggestion is fundamentally not true. Axad12 (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Policy at the time, and the policy now, as it always has been, when you make an edit, you are responsible for that edit. So by reverting the content back into the article, you were then responsible for that edit, and also partly to blame for this garbage content being kept in the article when it clearly shouldn't have been. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I entirely accept that.

For clarity, when I said my understanding of policy at the time I meant my understanding of policy at the time - I wasn't trying to suggest that the policy has changed since I made those edits.

What I am saying is that those edits were not made with malice, they were made because I accepted the opinions of other users more experienced than myself, opinions which I now know that I ought to have questioned. Axad12 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You demonstrated poor judgement. Will you stay away from that article? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said earlier in this thread, I am 100% supportive of the new consensus in favour of excluding the previously disputed material.

Virtually all of my time on Wikipedia is spent at COIN and dealing with COI edit requests. I'm not the sort of user who spends their time edit warring over POV fringe material and generally being disruptive.

So, the last thing I would ever do is attempt to reinstall material where a very robust consensus at RfC has indicated that it should be excluded.

I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that I can be trusted in that regard. Axad12 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Judgement isn't about following consensus, it’s about making considered decisions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. I have acknowledged my error in that regard in my first response to Isaidnoway, above, re: the very useful input I received from Whatamidoing. Axad12 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Axad, if I read what you wrote correctly, and please correct me if I misunderstand: I will stay away from that article because I support the current consensus. My concern is what if consensus was to shift on that article? TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if my earlier response was unclear. My point was that I have absolutely no intention of edit warring over the previously disputed material (or any other material) so I don't see what purpose it would serve to ban me from the article.

I have only ever made (to the best of my knowledge) 3 previous edits to the article (1 in November and 2 in December?). These were all on the basis of a misunderstanding on a point of policy which has been pointed out to me above and which I have happily acknowledged and accepted. The issue at stake was not that I harbour any partisan view in relation to the content dispute, it was that I edited to reflect the views of other editors whose opinions I respected on the matter in question.

I do not see any reason for the community to anticipate that I would made a similar misunderstanding of policy going forwards.

Hopefully this clarifies... Axad12 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been expecting something to happen around User:Axad12, whom I ran into several months ago during a dispute at COIN. What I noticed back in October was that Axad12 seemed to be clerking the noticeboard, making prosecutorial noises, and sometimes unsupported accusations (ex: ...the existence of COI seems quite clear... 1, ...in relation to your undeclared conflict of interest... 2, As I said, the fact that there was a significant undeclared conflict of interest in relation to editing on Paralympic Australia-related articles was demonstrated some years ago. 3) towards what they thought of as COI editors (this was about whether User:Hawkeye7 had failed to adequately announce their conflict with Paralympic Australia, where they've been openly helping as a volunteer on our community's behalf for many years, and after they had just made an almost invisible contribution on the Signpost). I often find such clerking of noticeboards by relatively unseasoned users to be troublesome; Axad12 has 490 edits at COIN, about 12% of their total 3801 edits (but about a third of the roughly 1500 edits total on COIN since September). If you use a hammer all day, you might begin to think that all objects are potentially nails. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Rereading the discussion this morning 90 days later, it reads worse than I made it sound above. An uninvolved admin tried to close the thread and chastised Axad12 in that close. The OP asked the thread closure be reversed, so the close comments were moved down to the end of the thread. BusterD (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for Axad12 to take a break from WP:COIN and associated matters and concentrate on other areas of Wikipedia for a few months. I was going to use a cliché here, but I see BusterD's already used it in the last sentence of the post before last, so won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Only so many ways to screw in a lightbulb. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

In fairness, the overwhelming majority of my posts at COIN over the last year or so have been simple helpful contributions. The two matters discussed above were atypical and in both cases I've taken on board the advice I was given.

If (per the figures above) I've been making about a third of all the contributions at COIN over that period then my behaviour would have been reported here long ago if I was either disruptive or incompetent.

That said, I won't deny that I've been seriously considering retiring from Wikipedia over the last two months. The only reason I've not done so is because other users have specifically encouraged me to carry on because they value my work at COIN and on COI issues generally.

All I can say is that what I have done, I have done in good faith and when I have occasionally erred I have learned lessons. I have acknowledged above that I've made mistakes and I'm grateful to those who have given me advice. Axad12 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You've been reported here now. Over stuff that's current, and applicable. In that matter, you seemed to believe your expertise in COI matters allows you to decide what constitutes a valid RFC. That seems like a problem to me. I'm providing evidence on related behavioral matters. Having made one third of all recent edits on a noticeboard is not the high achievement you might think it is. Stay or retire, but learn to better assume good faith here, even when dealing with COI contributors. Most accounts are fine. You've been working in a narrow area where you deal with many bad faith users. I can understand why that might wear on any editor. The proof will be if you can incorporate these valid complaints into your future action. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Buster, I know that we've had crossed words in the past so I'm grateful for your understanding and your measured response above. Yes, I deal with many bad faith users and yes it does wear on me sometimes.

I don't claim any great expertise in COI matters but I do have the time to dedicate to the project and I've picked up a decent awareness of the methods that can be used to detect and prevent UPE/PROMO etc activity.

I believe that in the past when I've been given advice on points of policy I've taken that advice on board and would hope to continue to do so in the future. Axad12 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This comment is not about you, but you might be interested in it: I've been thinking for years that a rotating duty system might be helpful. Of course we're all WP:VOLUNTEERS, but we might be less stressed, and get more representative results, if we each spent a week at ANI and a month at RSN and a week at CCI each year than if one editor spends all year at ANI and another spends all year at RSN (and nobody is at CCI – anyone who is looking for an opportunity to deal with really serious problems should please consider spending some time at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. The few regulars there will be so grateful, and who knows? You might find that you like it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crosstraining? BusterD (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• I do think that it's worth zooming out and looking at the article as a whole. Comparing the version from before the current rewrites started to the current version makes it obvious that the tone of the article has become vastly more promotional, with much more focus on glowy feel-good aspects that are only mentioned in lower-quality sources (the story about the original creator hand-churning it?) And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) to the weird In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives (section above) that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products.[4][14] However, the new desserts evoked complaints by some consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream., which 100% reads like marketing-speak (downplaying the reaction by making it sound like it's just that people loved the old version so much. In fact, the current version doesn't mention Breyer's cost-cutting measures at all, even though it's a massive aspect of coverage.) That doesn't necessarily justify the version above, but it's important to remember that this was originally a one-word mention in a larger list - Following similar practices by several of their competitors,[5] Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum[6] and carob bean gum;[7] artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol;[8] and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others, the longstanding wording, is not unreasonable and doesn't really imply that there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol, just that it's an additive. I think the context of that larger shift to a much more promotional tone to the article is significant (and looking over talk, most of the actual dispute has focused on that.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that the longstanding wording doesn't really imply there's anything particularly dangerous about propylene glycol. But the source being used [8] doesn't even mention "maltodextrin and propylene glycol", that I can find, so those two particular additives were not even verifiable at the time. And then propylene glycol was removed, and when it was added back here as "a chemical commonly used in a car antifreeze", was really when this dispute seem to take a turn for the worse to keep this content in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, about this And the context of the additive section has changed from emphasizing that it was cost-cutting (well-supported in the sources) – I don't know what other sources say, but the cited sources don't say that at all. The cited sources are both from Canadian dairy farmers' marketing associations, saying that their product is good and costs more than imported oils, but doesn't actually WP:Directly support a claim that Breyers uses imported oils, or that Breyers has done anything to cut their costs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  (As this is strictly a question of content, please consider replying at Talk:Breyers instead of here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, WhatamIdoing, and Isaidnoway: would you all mind if I copy over the thread, starting at Aquillion's "I do think that...." over to Breyer's talk? Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't mind, but my contribution to this thread is relatively minor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and a Diddly Question

I would like to thank User:Cullen328 for providing the background and content information. I also have a possibly minor question for User:Axad12. They edit-warred to try to stop the RFC on the content, and said that there was an exceptionally serious abuse of the conflict of interest process. I may not have done enough background research, but I don't see where they have identified who has been the paid editor or undisclosed paid editor, or what the conflict of interest content is. If there has been paid editing, who has done it, and have they been dealt with? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Robert, probably the best single overview of the COI issue is given in this post [2].

My impression at the time of the events, and subsequently, was that the activity was designed to distort the COI edit request process. I still feel that what happened re: the COI edit requests was irregular but I note that no other user seems to have supported me in that regard so I've not taken the matter any further. Similarly, while I felt that those events had a bearing on the RfC I now accept that the RfC relates solely to the content matter specifically under discussion. Axad12 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I find your characterization of events inaccurate. You stated "we have the resubmission of the request to remove the disputed material in a COI edit request thread here [3]"

But this was not a resubmission. The original COI request was to remove a list of ingredients (including propylene glycol) which was sourced to a blog and which the COI editor says is outdated and doesn't reflect current ingredients. Meanwhile, the link you give as an example of "resubmission" was the COI editor requesting the removal of "the recent content addition related to propylene glycol". Both requests involve propylene glycol, but they are clearly separate requests concerning separate content.

We want COI editors to propose changes to talk pages. The fact that this COI editor, apparently frustrated by a lack of responses to their requests went to the Food and Drink Wikiproject to request someone look at their edits, and then went to an active participant of said Wikiproject and requested they look at their requests, is not suspicious or abnormal. And I think it's highly inappropriate how Axad12 argued at length on the talk page that User:Zefr was "cultivated" by the COI editor "to do their bidding". I support other editors in recommending Axad12 take a break from COI issues. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd just like to stress here that I only linked to my post above because Robert McClenon asked for the background to the COI element. I was not trying to re-open that issue or to request that any action be taken on that issue. I have already accepted that there is absolutely no support for the position I adopted there. Axad12 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my question. The link is to a conversation between User:Axad12, User:Graywalls, and administrator User:DMacks. The links from that conversation show that there is antagonism between Axad12 and Graywalls on the one hand and User:Zefr on the other hand. They show that there is discussion of conflict of interest, but they show no direct evidence of conflict of interest editing by any editor. They don't answer who is said to be a paid editor making edit requests, aside from the fact that paid editors are supposed to make edit requests rather than editing directly, so I am still not sure what the issue is. I haven't seen any evidence of abuse, let alone of exceptionally serious abuse that warranted edit-warring to prevent an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The paid editor is User:Inkian Jason who is open and transparent about their COI. The edit request which began this episode was when Inkian Jason began this discussion where they pinged User:Zefr about having uploaded a photo of the company's logo and asking if they would be willing to add it to the article. Secondary to that they also asked about the appropriateness of the recently added propylene glycol content. The COI issues centered around whether Inkian Jason "cultivated" Zefr by pinging him to remove the added propylene glycol text after they had previously requested the deletion of a sentence about the various ingredients used in the ice cream (which included propylene glycol). Photos of Japan (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Article Ban of Axad12 from Breyers

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

---

(Proposal 1 has been lost up in the early postings.) I propose that User:Axad12 be article-banned from Breyers and Talk:Breyers for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Robert, I believe I have acknowledged and accepted my various errors in some detail above. I would be grateful for the opportunity to take on board and apply the very valuable input I have received from various more experienced users over the course of this thread. I'd therefore suggest a counter-proposal, that I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr and refrain from making any future comment on the matters under discussion in this thread (once this thread is complete). In addition, if I go back on any of those voluntary undertakings I would be happy for it to be upon pain of an indefinite site ban. Axad12 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Axad12, I wonder what your intent is with your counterproposal. Robert McClenon has proposed an article ban for 6 months. Your counterproposal is, in effect, an indefinite article ban, an I-ban with Zefr, and a topic ban on the topic of propylene glycol in Byers, all without the usual escalating blocks for violations, instead jumping straight to an indef. While this would solve the issue, it's much more draconian. What's your reasoning for requesting harsher restrictions? EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  The purpose of the counter proposal was simply to indicate that I have only good intentions going forwards and I am happy to demonstrate those intentions upon pain of the strongest possible sanction. Evidently I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking, as I'm aware that eyes will understandably be upon me going forwards.

  As I've said before, I'm a good faith user and I'm amenable to taking instruction when I have erred. I would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that without being subject to a formal ban. Axad12 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I fail to see a distinction between what you proposed and a formal ban. Your proposal is on pain of an indefinite site ban. "A rose by any other name" comes to mind here. Your voluntary adherence to the terms of the proposal would be indistinguishable from being compelled into adherence by threat of an indef. If you still want this course of action, fair enough, I just don't think it'll do what you're envisioning. EducatedRedneck (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I really don't recommend that, Axad. Sure, take a break from that article if you want to. But it's really easy to forget about a dispute years later, or even for a company to change names and suddenly you're on that article without knowing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  For clarification, I would be happy to undertake voluntarily any measures that the community may suggest and upon pain of any sanction that the community may suggest. I believe that there is value to undertaking such measures voluntarily because it allows one to demonstrate that one can be trusted.

  Also just a brief note to say that in about an hour and a quarter's time I will have no internet access for the next 12-14 hours. Any lack of response during that period will simply be for that reason and not due to a wilful refusal to communicate. Hopefully I have indicated above that I have been happy to respond to all questions.

  No doubt matters will progress in my absence and I will find out my fate upon my return. Axad12 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support as less stringent than what Axad has proposed above within this section, but still prevents further disruption. EducatedRedneck (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose because Axad12 seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. Cullen328 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. I also oppose Axad12's counter proposal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Given Cullen328's comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. I just don't see a need for such strict measures. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose the formal sanction, but I do support Axad12s voluntary sanction = I will voluntary undertake not to edit the Breyers article or make any contribution at the talk page, not just for the next 6 months but forever. I will also refrain from any interaction with Zefr ... I wouldn't have made the counter proposal if I wasn't serious about the undertaking. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Proposal 3: Article Ban of Axad12 from COIN

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

---

Clerking at COIN seems to have given User:Axad12 the idea that everyone whom they don't know is probably a paid editor, and something has given them the idea that they can identify "exceptionally serious abuse" without providing direct evidence. I propose that User:Axad12 be article-banned from WP:COIN for two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Robert, just a brief note to say that I do not believe that everyone whom [I] don't know is probably a paid editor. The overwhelming majority of my contributions at COIN are simple constructive contributions and the matter described above is highly atypical. Axad12 (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose because Axad12 seems to have taken on board the criticism (much of which came from me) and we don't need to be vindictive. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. This episode has largely been a series of poor judgements by Axad12 perhaps coloured by their enthusiasm for COI matters but feedback has been given and acknowledged. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Given Cullen328's comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• I would prefer it if Axad12's voluntary commitment was to stay away from WP:COIN rather than the company article in particular. It is very unhealthy, both for Wikipedia and for the particular user, for anything like a third of the edits on any noticeboard to be from any one user. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support this is a good idea, and not vindictive. It will do Axad12 some good to get away from the COIN for awhile, and get out there and roam around Wikipedia and see where else they can contribute constructively. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think a formal ban is unnecessary. Axad has done a remarkably good job of articulating a positive response to this incident, and it's to his credit that he has reacted so constructively under such pressure.

  I also think it's good for everyone to try something different on occasion. I think it's easier to walk away for a bit if you're sure that others will step up to fill your place. So with such proposals (not just this one), I'd love to see people saying not only that they support giving someone a break, but also that they'll try to step up to help out in that page/process/noticeboard for the length of a ban. It could be as little as checking in once a week or answering the easy questions. Who is willing to actually be supportive in practice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  People will fill the space. WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensible. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's only for two months, it's a good thing to get away and get a breath of fresh air, and yes, his response has been positive, but even he admits in the Breyer debacle, he was relying on other editor's opinions in evaluating the disputed content, so getting away from the COIN desk for a couple of months, and getting some experience in other areas of the encyclopedia will be beneficial, if and when, he returns to COIN. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don’t want to derail the voting process here, but a couple of points in relation to COIN…

  (Apologies for the length of this post but I feel the contents are relevant.)

  1) It has been observed elsewhere that “COIN has no teeth” (forgive me for the absence of a diff but I think it's a commonly acknowledged idea). I've discussed that issue at some length with Star Mississippi and they've acknowledged that there is (in their opinion) insufficient admin oversight at COIN and that too many threads have historically gone unresolved without action being taken against promo-only accounts (etc).

  Star Mississippi has encouraged me to refer such cases to admins directly to ask them to intervene. I’ve been doing so over recent months and this has significantly improved positive resolutions on COIN threads.

  If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there. Thus, while I acknowledge Whatamidoing’s earlier point about cross-training etc, and the points made by other users, there is an underlying unresolved issue re: admin oversight at COIN, which might also be resolved via some kind of rota or by a greater number of admins looking in from time to time.

  I’ve not consciously been clerking, and I certainly don’t aspire to be “the co-ordinator of COIN”, but there is something of a vacuum there. Consequently I’ve often posted along the lines of “Maybe refer this to RPPI?”, “Is there a notability issue here?”, etc. etc. in response to threads that have been opened.

  I absolutely accept 100% that, in terms of experience, I’m probably not the best person to be doing that – but I have the time to do it and I have the inclination, and in the absence of anybody else serving that role I’ve been happy to do it. But, as I say, really this is an underlying unresolved issue of others not having the time or inclination rather than an issue of me going out of my way to dominate. What I'd really like is if there were others sharing that task.

  2) Also I'm not really sure that the extent to which I perform that sort of role has any real link to me making assumptions about whether COI users have good or bad faith motivations. On the latter distinction I think it's fair to say that I'm usually (but admittedly not always) correct. There have also been occasions when others have been asking for action to be taken and I've been the voice who said "no, I think this is a good faith user who just needs some guidance on policy". I hope that I'm normally speaking fair in that regard.

  Most of the accounts who are taken to COIN are recent accounts who wrongly believe that Wikipedia is an extension of their social media. Most accounts who fall into that category are advised along those lines and they comply with policy or, sometimes, they just go away. Then there are the repeat customers who are often clearly operating in bad faith and where firmer action needs to be taken. I'm conscious of that distinction, which seems to me to be the single most important point when dealing with COIN cases. I've not been adopting some kind of hardline one-size-fits-all approach or characterising all COI activity as bad per se. However, more admin oversight at COIN would certainly be appreciated, if only so that there were a wider range of voices.

  Thus, in an ideal world I think I would continue to be allowed to operate at COIN, but as one of several regular contributors.

  Apologies for the length of this post but hopefully this is a useful and relevant contribution. Please feel free to hat this post if it is considered wildly off-topic. Axad12 (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  This comment just reinforces my support position that a two-month break is a good idea. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Isaidnoway, all I can say is that if Wikipedia is looking for people with the time and motivation to dedicate to the project, and who are amenable to taking instruction, then here I am.

  If I’ve been felt to be overly keen to contribute in a particular area then fair enough. I’m just not sure that a formal ban is the way to go about resolving that. Axad12 (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Good grief, it's only two months, not a lifetime, I've taken breaks form the project longer than that, and guess what, the place didn't fall apart, and neither will COIN if you take a small break, formally or voluntarily. You claim - If I’m not active at COIN then that won’t be happening and very little action will be being taken against the promo only accounts reported there. I just don't believe that to be true, because as Phil Bridger points out - WP:COIN managed before Axad12 showed up, and will manage if they stop editing there. Nobody is indispensable. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  I really don't wish to argue, you've expressed your view and that's fine. However, the point of my long post above wasn't that "I am critical to COIN". The post was simply intended to highlight the fact that there are very few regular contributors at COIN and to express a hope that a wider range of contributors might get involved (following on from earlier related comments by Whatamidoing). That would be healthy all round, regardless of my situation.

  Also, when I've seen similar situations arise in the past, good faith (but over-active) users seem to usually be given the opportunity to voluntarily take steps to allay any community concerns, rather than being handed a formal ban. I'd just be grateful for a similar opportunity. Axad12 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies for the delay. I cannot provide a diff either as I can't recall where we had the conversation but acknowledging that what @Axad12 attributed to me is correct. There are simple blocks that are sometimes needed, but there aren't as many eyes on COIN to action them. I believe I've found merit to any Axad reported directly to me and if there were any I didn't take action, it was due to bandwidth as my on wiki time has been somewhat limited over the last six months. As for the merit of this report, I am not able to read through it to assess the issue so it would not be fair of me to weigh in on any element thereof. Star Mississippi 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I have read through this long, entire discussion. I'd just like to point out to Axad12 that, to me, it's kind of like you are saying what you think we want to hear so it's hard to know how reflective this incident has caused you to be. I think it would be a mistake for you to think you only made mistakes regarding this one article and instead reconsider your approach to the entire COI area. Sometimes "the consensus" is not correct and can violate higher principles like NPOV and V.

I'll just mention that the COI area has caused us to lose some invaluable editors, just superb and masterful editors who were on their way to becoming administrators. They devoted incredible amounts of time to this project. But their interest in rooting out COI and pursuing UPE caused them to completely lose perspective and think that they were a one-man/woman army and they took irresponsible shortcuts that led them to either leave the project voluntarily or be indefinitely blocked. It's like they fell down a rabbit hole where they began to think that the rules didn't apply to them because they had a "higher calling" of getting rid of COI. This lack of perspective caused us to lose some amazing editors, unfortunately, but ultimately they were damaging the project.

You seem like an enthusiastic editor and I'd rather not see the same thing happen to you so I recommend you cut back on your time "clerking" COIN and just make this task one of a variety of areas you edit in instead of your primary activity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Liz, thank you for your comments. I welcome your perspective and I'm not unaware of the dangers that you highlight.

I think this is now day 5 of what has been a rather gruelling examination where I’ve co-operated to the very best of my ability. Most of the material under discussion has related to a series of regrettable misunderstandings where I’ve openly acknowledged my errors and would now like to move on.

Therefore I’d be grateful if, following a period of reflection, I be given the latitude to continue my activities as I think best, taking on board all the very helpful advice that I’ve received from multiple users. At this moment in time I'm not sure exactly what that will look like going forwards, but it will involve a very significant (perhaps complete) reduction in my concentration on COI issues and much more time spent on improving articles in non-COI areas where I've previously contributed productively (e.g. detailed articles on specific chess openings).

If I subsequently fall short of community expectations then by all means bring me back here with a view to imposing extreme sanctions. I do not think that that will end up being necessary.

I have only the best of intentions but I must admit that I'm finding this prolonged process psychologically wearing. I therefore wondered if we might bring matters to a swift conclusion.

I am genuinely very grateful for the thoughts of all who have contributed above.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, all: This thread's over 100 comments now. Can we please stop now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconding. Axad seems to have agreed to step back from COI-related editing for a while, all discussions are trending strongly towards no formal sanctions - could this be closed? Rusalkii (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive. At times Axad12 can get too aggressive, and removing the RfC template was one of that. Other issues were also raised but unless these issues continues, formal sanctions are unlikely necessary. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose I haven't gone through the entire saga on the Breyers page, but for a while I was active in COI edit requests at the same time Axad12 was, and noticed their conistently very combatitive/aggressive approach towards any editor with a declared or suspected COI. I mentioned this to them and they said they had already stepped back from answering COI edit requests because of this, which I though at the time (and still do) showed a genuinely impressive amount of self-awareness. I rather burned out on the edit requests and came back a few months later to see the queue vastly decreased thanks in part ot Axad12's efforts, but also what seemed to me like very little improvement, if any, to the way they approach COI editors. I would regret to see Axad12 banned from this topic area, but I would like to see them approach it with somewhat more kindness. I would (regretfully) support sanctions if this kind of behaviour continued, but there's no need to jump to that now. Rusalkii (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Just a note to acknowledge the essential truth of Rusalkii's description above of my activities. There have, however, also been examples where I've shown considerable kindness and patience to COI editors and assisted them in re-formulating requests in a way that conforms with the relevant policies.

I've always seen activities at WP:COIN and activities dealing with COI edit requests as two rather different things (with the former involving primarily undeclared COI, and the latter involving declared COI). With the benefit of hindsight I accept that my exposure to the former probably coloured my approach to the latter in an unhelpful way and that being heavily active in both spheres simultaneously was not a good idea.

I would happily undertake never to deal with a COI edit request ever again and I have no particular desire to continue my activities at COIN either. The extent to which it was unhealthy to be operating in both areas is thus now effectively a moot point but I acknowledge that it was a factor in the matters under discussion here. Axad12 (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

IP hopper repeatedly adding unsourced and incorrect information to UK Rail articles

Discussion moved from WP:AIV to avoid cluttering up that noticeboard with discussion.

There is a user at the 27.55.xxx.xxx range that is repeatedly adding unsourced and invalid information to UK rail articles. The primary problem is the addition of a Maximum Speed to steam locomotives - steam locomotives in the UK did not really have a formal maximum speed, so this parameter is not used in these circumstances. As the user is hopping between IPs, it's proving nearly impossible to leave adequate warnings on talk pages, and as noted at AIV a rangeblock would affect a large number of innocent good faith users. Is there a way forward here, or is it a case of whack-a-mole?

Diffs:

• 27.55.93.62 (talk · contribs) - [4]
• 27.55.83.83 (talk · contribs) - [5] & [6]
• 27.55.79.100 (talk · contribs) - [7]
• 27.55.70.101 (talk · contribs) - [8], [9] & [10]
• 27.55.68.32 (talk · contribs) - [11].

Cheers, Danners430 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems the only answer is to continue playing w-a-m until our Thai friend gets bored. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I've created an edit filter, Special:AbuseFilter/1335, to detect IPs in that range editing articles that contain {{infobox locomotive}}. I've set it just to log for the moment; let's see what it catches. — The Anome (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Review of an article deletion

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

---

Hello, I will like to request a review on the deletion of the article on Prisca Abah Theirson (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

An IP who gave me a fake 4im warning

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

---

There was a IP address (177.76.41.247) who

1. Called me blind in an edit summary after i reverted his edit
2. trouted me and gave me a 4im warning

I think this is the appropriate place to take this report.

Thanks, Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, a 4im warning was certainly an overreaction and the edit summary could have been nicer, but your revert was obviously wrong. The IP has since self-reverted the warning. No admin action is needed here, but you should read IP edits more carefully before reverting them, and consider changing your distasteful signature. Spicy (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Distasteful? What do you mean? it is simply a videogame refrence to Ultrakill.

And i did admit fault for the bad edit (and for my unnecessarily silly first response).

Thanks, Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

However, @Spicy I was gonna change it due to me changing my username soon. So, in the meantime, i will change it. Tenebre_Rosso_Sangue, ULTRAKILLing Vandals! Call for Medic! My Stats! 22:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be great i you could remove all of the extraneous phrases and change it so that it is just your username and a link to your User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see the need to jump all over Tenebre over their signature. There are a number of other editors and admins who have similarly goofy signatures and jumping down one editor's throat seems petty. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Community block appeal by Drbogdan

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

---

Drbogdan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has asked for a review of their community block enacted as a result of a discussion here six months ago. Just FYI for context the original title of the section on their talk pages was "Request to restore editing per WP:STANDARD OFFER as suggested" and several users involved in the previous discussion were pinged, and a block review began there before I shut that down and informed them it needed to be done here, so there's going to be some volume of comments right away, in addition to the lengthy text of the request itself. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

CLOSING ANI CONCLUSIONS - MY (overdue perhaps) REPLIES Somewhat new to all of this (been busy in other wiki-areas over the years - see below), but seems it's been over 6 months since the start of my indev block (start date = July 6, 2024) - perhaps WP:STANDARD OFFER may now apply I would think - and hopefully, WP:AGF and WP:NPA (direct and/or indirect) apply here as well of course. Thanks. ::::I closed this quickly a few minutes ago since the latest comments have been fairly plain personal attacks, rather than discussing the substance of the complaint and appropriate action. It took me a while to organize my thoughts and copyedit myself - there's a lot to unpack here. Thank you for your comments and conclusions. As before, I've been very busy recently with mostly real-world activities (but also with some earlier online activities - 1+2+3 and others) . Sorry for my delay in not responding earlier of course. Hopefully, my presentation here is appropriate and entirely ok (I'm really new to this wiki-area). ::::Here we have a science expert mass-adding content based on low-quality popular science churnalism to our science articles, expecting that other editors will review it and determine whether to improve or remove it, and a complaint from the editors who have been cleaning up after them supposedly for many years. This discussion can be summed up with a quote from the competence is required essay: "A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up." We excuse this behaviour from very new editors who don't yet understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with standards for inclusion and not a collection of links. The community expects an editor with 90,000 edits to understand what content should be in an article and what constitutes a reliable source, especially for an editor who is also a subject matter expert. Mostly untrue claims. Certainly none intentional. As before, claims have been exaggerated (also noted by others Here and elsewhere) and/or interpretable (with no or few supporting diffs) (along with selection bias - ie, selected 10 or so articles out of hundreds of edited articles?) (source). Such claims, perhaps to seem more credible than they really may be, seem to have been presented under cover of apparent WP:POLICIES of one sort or another. In addition, the importance of WP:IAR, in some relevant instances, have been downplayed and/or dismissed outright. For one example of possible related contention, the very long-time (many years) List of rocks on Mars article, originally a very enriched (helpful/useful) version (seemingly at least), and justified by WP:IAR, is Here, but is currently (without discussion or WP: CONSENSUS) changed to a less helpful/useful article instead. Seems like WP:MOS rules may overrule WP:IAR? Seems so at the moment in this instance. At least until there's a better resolution of the issue through further discussion and WP:CONSENSUS I would think. In any case, lessons learned here of course. ::::Drbogdan's replies to deserved criticism in this thread have been dismissive of the problem at best, if not signalling that they believe their academic credentials excuse them from needing to improve. The community has historically rejected this approach, and rejects it here. Since Drbogdan seems not to understand that they are making a mess and seems uninterested in learning how not to continue making messes, the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is blocked indefinitely. Not true. Never said or thought this. Ever. Not my way of thinking. I've always tried to be open to improvement. Seems the better road generally. After all, nobody's perfect. Everyone could benefit from improvement of one sort or another I would think. My academic (and related) credentials have been presented only to describe my qualifications to edit Wikipedia, which, I currently understand, may be ok. Please let me know if otherwise of course. Nonetheless, my current UserPage is Here. (My earlier UserPage, if interested, is Here). ::-- ::::Separately from this close, I also *must say* that their habit - eccentric, maybe? - of hacking together *long run-on strings of comments* - interspersed - as they are - with *forced pause* breaks and sprinkled with self-aggrandizing - and off-topic, yes - links to their *achievements* [rm link for clarity] makes it - as others have said here - quite frustrating to converse with them. All the worse that the vast majority of their comments of this sort do not substantively reply to the comments they are left in response to.

Not ever true in my edits of mainspace articles. May be somewhat true on some talk-pages only. In any case, lessons learned here as well. Any specific rules broken in my editing have been entirely unintentional. As far as I currently know, all edits that may have been of some issue earlier have been completely corrected some time ago. I currently know of no real rules broken that may not be a matter of unsettled opinion. If otherwise, please specify rules that may have been an issue (and related diffs of course), and suggested ways that I may further improve my related edits going forward. I expect to adjust accordingly (and appropriately) as needed at the first opportunity of course. Thanks. ::::I'm also going to leave links here to Wikipedia:Expert editors, Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors, and Wikipedia:Expert retention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 8:18 am, 6 July 2024, Saturday (6 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−8) Thanks again for all your comments and conclusions. I should note that I have numerous Wiki-contributions/edits, including Wikipedia (98,481 edits+306 articles+70 tiemplates+30 userboxes+2,494 images+and more); as well as many Wiki-contributions/edits to WikiCommons; WikiData; WikiQuotes; WikiSimple; WikiSpecies; Wiktionary; other Wikis and other related Wiki programs. ADD: Drbogdan (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (WP:BEBOLD) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Wikipedia are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "WP:BEBOLD" and "WP:IAR", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Wikipedia, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Wikipedia as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "fact-checking" on some online websites. Re any apparent copyvio: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. Incidentally, I entirely agree that my earlier user page needs a version trimmed down to the very basics, and without any material whatsoover that may possibly be understood as promotional. I have no problem doing that of course. Seems I may have been too WP:BEBOLD with that (and related presentations, including those involving references and the like). In any case, thank you for reviewing my request here. I hope my replies (noted above) help in some way to restore my en-Wikipedia editing. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Prior talk page discussion

prior discussion copied from User talk:Drbogdan. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose: DrBogdan has never acknowledged their destructive editing tendencies or willingness to be overly promotional in weighting their contributions to wikipedia, a trait was has continued well into their CBAN with promotional-ish replies here (diff) and his edits to his userspace largely being to maintain promotional links. He continues above in lionizing the volume of his edit history without regard for quality and linking, inexplicably, his facebook, livejournal, and wordpress pages. I and other editors have spent a lot of time since their ban cleaning up the daily updates and image galleries added persistently to articles. Since his ban, I did more cleaning at Commons and this resulted in the deletion of 78 promotional images and selfies not contributing to the project. In this process I learned that Drbogdan has had a history of uploading images with copyright issues, as well. The meat of it, though, has been how he absolutely ruined entire science articles that have required complete rewrites to bring up to standard. I have maintained a list of this process since it’s very time consuming. So far I’ve had to rewrite (with help from others in places) Curiosity (Rover),List of rocks on Mars, Ingenuity (helicopter), Jezero (crater), Animal track, Bright spots on Ceres, and Aromatum Chaos, in addition to the cleanup done before his CBAN. All of these were victims of indiscriminate image galleries added to articles and daily updates on mission status. If we look at one I still haven’t gotten to, like Mount Sharp, it’s still an absolute mess of images smeared all over it. The intent of this list isn't to be any kind of gravedancing, but rather Drbogdan's major contributions have been so consistently low-quality that it's necessary to manually review every single article he's been heavily involved in to remove indiscriminate galleries. Drbogdan’s defence here and in the past has been a mix of the Shaggy defense and blaming my “persistence” at the ANI, despite my initial arguments at ANI being opposed to a ban. I think it’s pretty clear at this point that Drbogdan is motivated to edit, but unwilling to acknowledge any of the shortcomings in their editing process and I don’t actually see a planet in which their presence here is a positive given the timbre of this unban request. Especially considering it was so obviously going to be posted bang-on the six month mark. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Support, although it sounds like he has some hair-shirt wearing and more 'splaining to do. Nothing wrong in asking for this return after six months (that's what six months means, not six months but maybe wait an extra week or two). Thanks to Warrenmck for their cleanup, not a fun thing to do but needed when mistakes are made. That's what the six month wait is for, punishment for those mistakes. Once six months is served and understanding is admitted the slate should be swept clean and the fatted calf slaughtered for a feast. In seriousness, I've missed Dr.'s edits to science and space articles, he catches and posts new information at a commendable rate and I often learned about recent events from those edits. Taking Warren's concerns into account, maybe Dr. can explain a bit more about understanding why many editors had such concerns to begin with. Thanks, and, hopefully, welcome back. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Once six months is served and understanding is admitted And, not or. Above Drbogdan is actively complaining about the edits made to List of rocks on Mars since his ban, and refusing to acknowledge that there were any issues with systematic low quality edits in the first place. For all people like to address his science credentials, by his own biography those are all in medicine and as an actual WP:EXPERT editor in the areas he's most keen to edit I've relied far less on my credentials in editing these articles than he has. There were other space-centric WP:SMEs hitting a wall with his editing pattern in the ANI, as well, if I recall. This is what resulted in several editors discussing a proclivity for WP:PROFRINGE and WP:TOOSOON; he has been operating on the assumption that his ability to accurately weight information within planetary science and astrophysics is good, despite constant removal of added content in those fields. Expertise is non-transferrable. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Yes, and Drbogdan, if he comes back, has to adhere to those things or he won't be editing for long. A six-month indef ban seems long enough for someone to realize there may be a few things to do differently (hard to do for those of us who know everything and think that our way is the highway). He knows that his edits will be closely watched again, so maybe when an edit seems like it may be in question he can bring it to the talk page first (either the article or to one of the "watchers" for comment). Several ways to go about this, and better to have him editing and being careful about penalty calls than watching from the sidelines. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC) I don't want to bludgeon this, but I'm genuinely curious how you can possibly read an understanding of the underlying problem on his part from a post which basically can be summarized as "It wasn't me/I didn't do it/It wasn't intentional". I think there's some very serious wishful thinking on your part, because the above request to be unblocked actually contains every single element that lead to his CBAN; a refusal to recognize issues in the quality of his edits or in fact any meaningful wrongdoing at all and promotional editing. I currently know of no real rules broken This isn't the basis for the removal of a CBAN as "lesson learned" Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) I may be optimistic and hoping that this discussion will bring more comments from Drbogdan about these concerns. As I said, when we think we're right but other editors disagree then the process is to go through a long discussion to try to talk some sense into them (as seen from our point of view, which hopefully includes the ability to change our own mind) - because in Wikipedia even a 13-year-old high school student has as much say as a Dr. or professor. That power given to the uninformed is a trademark of Wikipedia, but somehow it works and the place runs well while growing and improving by the second. Dr. gives much weight to IAR, as he should (IAR, undiscussed by most editors, is policy and a darn good one), but you have to know it when you see it (from the perspective of that 14-year-old (who just this second had a birthday) editing while in study hall). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC) WP:IAR in Drbogdan's case included a lot of copyvio, both at Commons (uploading non-free images) and in article spaces (linking copyright violating youtube videos inline in articles). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (WP:BEBOLD) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Wikipedia are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "WP:BEBOLD" and "WP:IAR", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Wikipedia, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Wikipedia as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "fact-checking" on some online websites. Re any apparent copyvio: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) So, as you can see I have collapsed the above discussion for the moment. This is a community-imposed block based on a consensus determined at ANI, it must go through the same process if an unblock is to be considered. I can, however copy over the above comments if and when that is done so the users who have already commented don't have to start over. Before we go there, I'd like to ask, in light of what I have just explained and the feedback already given, if you are sure this is the appeal you want to submit for review by the community? Beeblebrox Beebletalks 01:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. And clarification of the relevant procedure. Yes, you may submit the related appeal. Thank you for your help with this. Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC) That's a bad idea. Bebblebrox was giving you a subtle hint. Rewrite your appeal to address the main concerns. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks for your comments - seems like my current appeal above addresses the main concerns presented in the original ANI concluding comments - at least as far as I'm aware of at the moment - am I overlooking something? - Drbogdan (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Many things. I've previously addressed them up above and they have recently been addressed in the current, now collapsed thread. This isn't rocket science. You're intelligent, and I think you can figure it out. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Seems like my very last comments (copied below) in the collapsed thread does that in fact. Certainly intended to do that, and thought I did in fact - Drbogdan (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Copy of my last comments in the thread: Thanks for reviewing my request. May have been a bit bold (WP:BEBOLD) on some of my earlier edits and presentations. I sincerely apologize in these instances if overdone of course. Nonetheless, some complaints seem interpretable to me (a "mess" to some may not be one to others for example; "quality" of editing may be another example). The standards on Wikipedia are not set in stone so-to-speak, but keep evolving - hence, "WP:BEBOLD" and "WP:IAR", and similar phrasing and notions, seem to be an essential part of the DNA of Wikipedia, and helpful, I would think, to the better development of Wikipedia as a world-class source of quality knowledge and information. This may be even more important these days given the apparent recent removal of "fact-checking" on some online websites. Re any apparent copyvio: none ever intentional, and all completely solved long ago afaik. Hope this helps in some way. Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Incidentally, I entirely agree that my earlier user page needs a version trimmed down to the very basics, and without any material whatsoover that may possibly be understood as promotional. I have no problem doing that of course. Seems I may have been too WP:BEBOLD with that (and related presentations, including those involving references and the like). Drbogdan (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) A stated interest in using bold and IAR to more of a degree than most editors may seem too close to how you've edited in the past that a group of users objected to. Maybe tone that down or even go the opposite way - in some instances where you believe IAR to be the correct solution maybe plan to first take these to talk pages for feedback (you can likely "feel" when an edit will be objected to, and those are the ones to discuss beforehand). In any case, after an indef ban, editing practices should at least be modified to take others points-of-view into account. Make sense? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Yes. I *completely* agree with everything you've noted (and had thought of all of this earlier myself as well). I fully expect to do all of this at the next oppotunity. No problem whatsoever with any of this. - Drbogdan (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be on WP:AN, not WP:ANI? also, this is weird. This section, and this section only, has a pause between typing the "]]" at the end of links when I hit it fast. Not other sections on the page, and not the edit summary box either... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Tech issue appears to start after the "Separately from this close" quote above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    I put the discussion here because this is where the block was decided. Seems like it should go back to the same place?

    I've had a really long couple of days but if there are still technical problems here tomorrow I'll look into it. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 03:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    • I think unblock requests usually go on AN, but that's fair. And as a further note, the "delay" between the "]]" typing gets longer the further I go down the page when editing that section. Editing just this subsection, it's just fine, so there's something in that quote or just below it that is making Firefox go pear-shaped. It's very weird. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Further Discussion of Community block appeal by Drbogdan

Any replies from Drbogdan to further comments here may be copied over. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not sure what that stream of consciousness is trying to say but it goes nowhere near addressing the issues resulting in the ban. DeCausa (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing anything in the Wall of text that shows the editor understands why they were banned and how their behaviour needs to change. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I see nothing here that suggests Drbogdan understands the problem and is willing to take positive steps to avoid it. Rather the opposite. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock request does not address the reason for their ban. And the content of the request just goes to show why the ban should be continued and why they are not of benefit to the community and are just wasting other editor's time. Canterbury Tail talk 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose fails to address the reason the ban was given, nor give any adequate assurances that the behavior that resulted in the ban will not be an issue going forward.Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: The standard offer requires that banned users promise to avoid engaging in the behaviors that led to their ban. I do not see any such promise in this unblock request, so this appeal should be struck down. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The unblock request provides neither adequate specifics to convince me that the previous ban was improperly applied, nor any apology nor promise to do better regarding the behavior that led to the ban. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - The unblock request largely shows the same issues they were blocked for - self promo (links to facebook, wordpress and livejournal), not taking on community advice (all responses are "nuh-uh, not true"), and difficulties communicating (formatting is a mess and responses are only tangentially related to what they are quoting). Their defense is mainly "I never did anything that bad", not the required acknowledgement of the problem and indication of improval. In the unblock request they specificly use this version of the List of rocks on Mars article as an example of a good contribution - which has The name Jazzy, for example, was taken from a girl named Jazzy who grew up in Grand Junction, Colorado, USA. Her father worked for NASA and contributed to the findings and naming of the rocks. unsourced in the second paragraph. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Report on Disputed Edits and Insults

• Ebrahim Raisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tele-1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Taha Danesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the page Ebrahim Raisi, user Tele-1985 has edited and changed the number of prisoners executed from "several" to "thousands." Based on the references added by themselves, on page 11 it states: "To date, the exact number of those killed is unknown." This reference, along with almost all sources on this matter, estimates that the exact number is unknown and instead provides a range. The exact number is uncertain, and the range spans from less than 1,000 to over 30,000. Referring to "thousands" implies a number over 2,000, which is unsupported by the source, as the interval is unclear and varies widely.

I have made multiple attempts to clarify this and discussed the issue twice on their talk page (User talk:Tele-1985#Concerns Regarding Neutrality and Reliable Sourcing - Raisi), but they did not respond and continued to revert my edit, changing the word "thousands" back to what it was previously. Additionally, they criticized me on User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Taha Danesh, without linking my name or notifying me. I only discovered this discussion by accident. In that discussion, they falsely accused me of several things. Since I wasn’t informed about the discussion, I had no opportunity to defend myself. They also insulted me and my edits in their edit summaries on the Raisi page, such as stating: "Your edit makes no sense."

As mentioned, they also falsely accused me of multiple things in the User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Taha Danesh, without linking my name or notifying me on my talk page, leaving me unable to defend myself. For example, they claimed a unrelated conspiracy theory, that I was using another IP address to edit. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to note that at the same time this report was filed, I was filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to report on Taha Danesh violating the three revert rule.Tele-1985 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Both of these people have been edit warring (I'm not sure whether they have violated WP:3RR, but that doesn't matter) and have been attempting to communicate via edit summary. Both of you just stop this and talk about the content issue at Talk:Ebrahim Raisi, where there does not seem to be any discussion of this issue. It doesn't matter what the article says while you are talking. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for 24 hours to force discussion. (Note the page was previously indef semi-protected per arb enforcement, so that will need to be restored when the full protection expires). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I will be happy to go the talk page to acheive consensus on specific wording. I'll just give an overview of the disruption and a response because there also many competency issues with Taha Danesh in addition to a content dispute about the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. I haven't violated 3RR but Taha Danesh has so I reported them earlier.

The references I added to Ebrahim Raisi from Amnesty International says "Between July and September 1988, the Iranian authorities forcibly disappeared and extrajudicially executed thousands of imprisoned political dissidents". The existing NBC News source says "the execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988 following the Iran-Iraq War." I don't know how one could argue that "thousands" is unsourced as Taha Danesh repeatedly did in their edit summaries while "several" is unsourced and a massive understatement. We could put specific numbers but Taha Danesh objected to that on the Ruhollah Khomeini's article as shown in edits referenced lower.

Taha Danesh first reverted my correction of this figure without using an edit summary and reinserted the completely unsourced estimate of "several" which was grammatically wrong also. They then reverted me four further times with bizarre edit summaries where they claimed that Amnesty International and NBC news were "clearly biased and politically motivated". They also didn't seem to understand what "several" meant. These reverts are: 1, 2, 3 &4

The dispute started a couple days ago on Ruhollah Khomeini where Taha Danesh reverted my additions and falsely accused me of everything in a frankly bizarre edit summary:"Rv unexplained changes with ideological or political or personal previews or poor or unsourced statements and BLP issue or vandalism". This was ironic because I did explain my edit and use sources while BLP clearly doesn't apply to Ruhollah Khomeini. Even worse is that they had initially deleted the content about executions and child soldiers last month without explanation: [12] and [13]. There are other blatantly POV issues with these edits. Only an hour after ScottishFinnishRadish gave them the CTOP alert they continued to edit war at Ruhollah Khomeini. User:HistoryofIran reverted them and pointed out that the sources were clearly reliable and asked them to make their case on the talk page but Taha Danesh never did. HistoryofIran also warned them about edit warring but Taha Danesh quickly deleted this warning. A few days later they started to edit war at Ebrahim Raisi over the estimate of executions.

I apologise for not notifying Taha Danesh about the discussion on ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page but I stand by everything I said there including that Taha Danesh was using an IP which was subsequently banned by ScottishFinnishRadish. I provided plenty of evidence. The IP address 93.71.57.57 removed deletion notices on Userboxes created by Taha Danesh and also exclusively edited the same pages as Taha Danesh, including pages created by Taha Danesh. Examples include: Eitaa Messenger, Bale Messenger and Rubika.

I also acknowledge that I should've responded to Taha Danesh's comments on my talk page but the first message on the 7th was odd and seemed like it could've been written using ChatGPT or copied from elswhere. It didn't really make much sense nor seem to reflect the actual dispute. Plus the dispute on Ruhollah Khomeini had ended by the time I saw it. Tele-1985 (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems that at the core of this is a content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page and definitely not discussed in edit summaries. TA discussion should never take place with edit summaries. Just a note that saying that an editor is dealing with "competency issues" could be seen as a personal attack. But, any way, move the discussion from ANI to talk pages and see if this helps resolves your differences. It would also help if you could get some additional participation from other editors so this isn't a Me vs. You situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Dispute about a Landman edit and allegations of undiplomatic behaviour

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

---

This dispute concerns Jeyne_Reyne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is a fictional TV series called Landman (TV series) involving an oil worker. Recently, a scene where the protagonist made some claims disputing the GHG payback of wind turbines, and this clip was reposted by right-wing users, including oil executives and fossil fuel advocates. In response, the scene recieved public backlash by climate change advocates, including media attention.

On the page, I added a section highlighting the media attention, and the scientific veracity of the claims. Jeyne Reyne removed the edit, [14] describing them as "ridiculous and unnecessary". Because of the conduct and other complaints pertaining to this user, I sent a message on their talk page, highlighting my disagreement and reverting the edit. They also removed another edit which highlighted criticism of the show [15]. I acknowledge that I believe this particular removal was valid due to a lack of citations, however, I find that this user actively removed negative criticism of the show on this article.

My edits can be found here [16], [17]. The contents of the paragraph include a description of the scene, the public response, and scientific studies on the matter, all with sufficient citations. I understand that it's possible that my contribution may not have been worded well, or placed in the wrong section. However, I strongly believe that this information is both relevant, accurate and important to be noted.

Afterwards, Jeyne reverted my edits again, describing it as "irrelevance which has nothing to do with reception" [18]. I strongly disagree with the sentiment that it's irrelevant, but I am willing to compromise and have this content moved onto a different section to address their concerns.

This user also has a history of disruptive editing [19], and [20].

NinjaWeeb (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT an equivalent of CinemaSins, and the item about windmills is ultimately an out-of-format aside within its criticism that I don't feel this is needed in the article at all, and whatever blue-checks and others who aren't there to enjoy a fictional show but to use it in political discourse most regular readers aren't anywhere aware of (or want to be) is not of use here; it's like arguing that Wile E. Coyote does not have the intelligence or strength to drop an anvil on the Roadrunner via catapult. Landman isn't expected to be a documentary, and this is simply very WP:MILL criticism that is of little to no note, including that of oil workers. You wouldn't expect a fictional series crew to get that detailed about oil workers to the point it's an occupational hazard to film the process. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with the Wile E Coyote equivalence, since it's unrealistic nature is mostly inconsequential. Other works of fiction, like South Park or the Boondocks, have had their controversies highlighted on Wikipedia, despite being a fictional series. South Park is fictional and uses absurd situations as humour, but it is still controversial and has recieved criticism that is of note.

I understand that Landman isn't meant to be a real show, but the statements about renewable energy which were said in the show are not inconsequential. They were shared online, as was the criticism of Landman. Many YouTube videos and news articles have been published regarding the turbine statements. NinjaWeeb (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks like purely a content dispute. Not something actionable. Simonm223 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the show isn't real. But reactions to the show are and can rise to the level of notabililty easily. That said, this is a content dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

How do I address content disputes? NinjaWeeb (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

By discussing on the article talk page Talk:Landman (TV series), which I'd note is empty of discussions over anything. Never a good sign when a content dispute is brought to ANI. Edit: I see the other party did actually tell you to open a talk page discussion. I mean this isn't a great thing either, far better for them to open one and say something like 'I started a talk page discussion, please join it'. OTOH, they didn't bring the WP:content dispute to ANI. If you're new to editing please use the WP:Teahouse and WP:Help Desk to ask for guidance on what to do next, rather than escalating disputes unnecessarily. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

IDHT religious POV-pushing

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

---

Umayyad-387 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite extensive guidance and warnings (cf. also [21]), this users continues to edit war on several pages of early Islamic figures, such as

• Abu Bakr [22][23][24][25][26][27],
• Umar [28][29][30][31][32],
• Aqil ibn Abi Talib [33][34][35][36]
• and now also Mu'awiya I [37][38]

Despite same guidance, they also keep insisting that hadith are more reliable than modern secular scholars, [39] and blindly accuse others who warn them for their behavior of religious (anti-Sunni) bias [40][41][42].

Umayyad-387 has also made some apparently constructive edits to pages about cricket players, so they're not quite WP:NOTHERE, and ideally a topic ban on Islam broadly construed would be the best solution. However, the WP:IDHT is so strong here that I fear they would just ignore it.

Thanks for your attention, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, quite apart from the rampant edit-warring over multiple articles (which is already problematic enough eligible for a block), this edit-summary in particular is very problematic, and this addition (scroll down) shows a CIR problem. A TBAN would be logical, but like the OP, I am unconvinced it would be followed. Other ideas are welcome. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That's an obvious sock puppet of Iarsalanansari. Just look at Special:Diff/1268864747, which was linked above. It's a random revert on a random article that he feels very, very strongly about. Why would some new user do that? Scroll down the article history to see who made the original edit, and it's Arslan8266. Now we have a suspected master. Look at Arslan8266's edits, and he tried to create Draft:Arslan Sultan. Does that sound familiar? It should. In the linked diff, Umayyad-387 said his name is Arslan Sultan. Guys, come on, just read the diffs that you post here, then go to WP:SPI and say what I just said. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

User:Maxionetwo's brother

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

---

Please indef User:Maxionetwo's brother... either for socking or trolling is up to you. Sorry, no time for an SPI right now. (And should I really drag our august CUs down from contemplating the beatitudes, etc., for something as trivial as this...?) Cheers, SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 17:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by LödedDiaper

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

---

I hope it's understandable, but I've not notified User:LödedDiaper of this discussion as they've just loutsocked to have a bit of a go at me & specifically targeted my ADHD (it's mentioned in a userbox on my page). I've not read through most of this tirade, but could an admin please take a peek for me? I'm also very aware that I may have overreacted in my original response & took it a little personally (I shouldn't have), so I will completely take that on the chin - nevertheless their response isn't ok. BTW The signature is a bit weird, it says one IP but then the autosignbot gave a different one... Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Update - I calmed down a bit and took another look, they're attacking pretty much everyone, but specifically admins who were involved in the block/TPA removal. I'm sorry if I triggered this response in any way by accidentally poking the tiger, it's not ok for someone to attack you guys like this either. I wasn't sure where to report this, but figured it should maybe be here since this is where they were originally blocked.Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the IP's post and blocked the IP. Jpgordon has semi-protected the page. PhilKnight (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• It seems that the Diaper editor dislikes me, intensely. I don't care. Cullen328 (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Me too, I get that they're angry, but I really wish they'd take their own advice and do something else. They've also made quite a few assumptions about me which are entertainingly incorrect. Nevertheless, [here] is their latest attack on my talk page for posterity, which took far less effort to remove than they took to post it. Anyway, I'm off to touch grass as they've recommended, ungulates love grass. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I, too, received that diatribe, Blue-Sonnet. Years ago, Antandrus wrote these words of wisdom: While it feels bad to be attacked by one of the persistent, nasty, obsessive trolls, it is helpful to remember that some of these people are profoundly miserable. They are really suffering; life is hell for them: often they are neither in control of their impulses, nor completely sane. I feel sorry for this sad person. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I guess great minds think alike, I just posted on their page to offer an olive branch - it might not work, but at least I tried. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

User Skibidiohiorizz123: Ban on grounds of CIS/AGF/NPA/CIVIL

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

---

Skibidiohiorizz123 (talk · contribs)

New account that only really seems to be here to stir the pot on Talk:Climate Change Denial.
Strange rant about how the article isn't following "natural (sic) point of view" and repeatedly saying it's the work of liberals[43].
Forum shopping demanding the article be entirely written with no good reason.[44] [45]
Now spouting about other users being "rats" who should be "exterminated".[46][47]
Whether it's trolling or genuine, the behaviour demonstrates they are clearly incapable of constructively contributing to the site. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Support CBAN 100%, I read this user's comments on other users being "rats" who should be "exterminated", thought to myself "wow, not very "catholic of them"...or extremely catholic of them (I'm never quite sure, depending on the historical era). and was about to post here myself about it but you beat me to it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I'm surprised this user's lasted this long with a ban given that thread on CCD is such a clear sign of a serious CIS problem. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Support CBAN: He wants to quit Wikipedia? We ought to give him his wish. If he's a troll, we don't need him here. If he's not, we don't need him here. GorillaWarfare indeffed him, but let's seal the deal. Ravenswing 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've issued a WP:NOTHERE block after separately coming across the "rats" comment. Beyond the pale, and given that their entire contribution history is that discussion at Talk:Climate change denial, it doesn't seem they're here for any constructive purpose. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Repeated copyvios by Vairankodepooram20

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

---

• Vairankodepooram20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vairankodepooram20 has repeatedly added copyvios to Vairankode Bhagavathy Temple despite warnings ([48], [49]). (Most recent diffs: [50], [51]; can't add others since they've been revdel'd but as you can see from the page history the vast majority of editor's text content additions have been copyrighted material. The editor is also edit-warring over tags (including the revdel tag and others) in addition to repeatedly adding infringing content. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm arguably involved as I have edited the article, but I would support an indefinite block for copyright violations. PhilKnight (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and blocked them to prevent more copyvios. PhilKnight (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive editing by Wolverine X-eye

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

---

I am posting this here because, among other concerns of continued disruptive editing, I believe that this user's actions are impacting the quality and integrity of the GAN process. I’ve looked at this for long enough and tried to aid where possible, but it seems that @Wolverine XI is unwilling to change their behaviour on this website, hence why I saw fit to bring this here.

They have passed several articles through GAN over the past few months that exhibit many edits in a short period (numbering into the hundreds), often paired with unexplained removal of information. These absurdly high edit counts clog up page histories and are not exclusive to their GAN targets either, as can be seen in this three-month-old discussion on the user’s talk page from back when I first noticed this ‘unusual editing style’. Some examples from around this time follow below, although I should add that this editing pattern has not changed:

• Common ostrich
• Woolly mammoth
• Columbian mammoth

Wolverine has been asked multiple times to try and reduce their edit counts so that page histories remain useable, and despite saying they will, have refused to take any actual action in this regard. One can see this pattern repeated over and over on their contributions page.

Sadly, high edit counts with minimal change are the least of the issues present here. Most recently, Wolverine passed Fennec Fox, but after closing and reopening the GAN himself in the middle of an active (and not strictly positive) review by another user. A new review was started by another user within a few days, and while they did acknowledge the existence of the second review, nothing was done about its improper closing and only a few sentences were added to the article between the two reviews (which can be found here and here respectively)

In many places where editors don’t immediately agree with Wolverine, he turns to insults, personal attacks and otherwise inappropriate comments. A non-exhaustive list of examples follows below:

• Under ‘Your talk page’, accusing another editor of inappropriately handling a discussion with a minor (the other user was, in fact, not a minor). Example 1
• Fennec fox GAN Example 1, Example 2
• List of pholidotans merge proposal Example 1, Example 2
• Narwhal talk page Example 1
• Own talk page Example 1

The user has also shown an unwillingness to put effort into article improvement when requested in the review processes, and an unwillingness to put effort into finishing reviews they start. Again, a non-exhaustive list of examples can be found below.

• Own talk page, starting and then not finishing two GA reviews (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wolverine_X-eye/Archive_2#Inactivity_during_reviews) and drive-by nomination of the World War I article, a bit of a while back when compared to other examples in this case (6 months). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wolverine_X-eye/Archive_2#Drive-by_nomination
• After being advised to do a thorough check on all the citations in the narwhal page (see the closing comments on review four, Wolverine opened a peer review for the article four days later stating that they ‘need to know where the article's source-to-text integrity is at’, indicating a fundamental lack of knowledge about the state of the article that he had, at this point, attempted to promote to FA four times in five months. In this same review, he also tried to get others to do a source review for him or make a peer review spot-check count in place of a spot-check at the next FAC.

I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached, and thank you for your time. The Morrison Man (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't plan on getting involved in this, except to say that my October comment that you linked to is a follow up. The original is from June and can be found higher up on that archive page at User talk:Wolverine X-eye/Archive 2#GA nomination of Charles De Geer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, The Morrison Man, let me address this promptly. So your first paragraph talks about the high number of edits I make to GAN pages. Well, I don't necessarily see that as a problem because you're the only editor who has made complaints about this, and if I may, I'm by no means the only editor who exhibits such behavior, so it's not at all clear to me why you're targeting me on this. Now regarding the 3 articles you listed, those were the articles that you brought to my attention in that discussion, and since then I've not repeated the behavior. The Fennec Fox incident is not an issue IMO. The editor in the first GAN clearly stated that they think the article was not up to GA-standards and that I should re-nominate it. Seeing that they were new to GAN and that they happened to be inactive at the time, I decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that. In Example 1, I read the whole discussion and it was pretty clear the editor was a minor. Sure, the talk page owner happened to talk to two people, one a minor, the other not, but they clearly spent more time with the minor talking about irrelevant stuff that aren't wiki-related. The editor even admits that they were in fact talking to a minor. The Fennec fox GAN examples are not personal attacks. They're just criticism. There's a difference. About Pholidota: I got a bit heated after Elmidae insulted and made hostile comments towards me. Yeah, that was a pretty contentious discussion overall. The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult, rather it's simply telling the IP to leave me alone as they were annoying me with those pings. I wanted to be as blunt as possible. The last link is just me explaining to a new editor why I reverted their edit. I said I didn't want to have the conversation again because if you look through the archives, you'll see that we had that exact discussion, but with a different article, before. I didn't think it was gonna happen again, and I sure didn't want it to happen for a third time, so I let the user know. Your last part talks about me not putting effort in my nominations and reviews. Well, I'm not the only editor who struggles to finish reviews, and I'll admit that sometimes I bite off a little more than I can chew. I did finish one of those reviews though. I would also state that I've made over 30 reviews, and out of those 30, I failed to complete maybe six of them. World War I was a drive-by nom, I'll admit, didn't realize that at the time, but that's the only case where I've unwittingly made a drive-by nom, so...We reach the end of your comment, and regarding your remarks about the FAC situation, well all I can say is that I needed insurance before I made another nomination, as the last two noms failed for sourcing issues. I was not confident about my scanning of the article's sourcing, so I needed a source review to see if the sourcing issues were still evident. I did scan a large portion of the article's sourcing but I just needed that extra insurance. Yep, that should be it. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The fennec fox edits are absolutey casting aspersions. Is this all about the message I left on your friend's talk page? You don't do much reviewing and judging by this review you also don't seem to be an experienced reviewer. This review has been unfair and your judgment on multiple aspects are off by a long shot is WP:ASPERSIONS. Also I decided to help them close the nomination as that was their intention, but they didn't seem to know how to follow through with that. - you do not close your own GANs. If you start it, you do not close it. Full stop. The Narwhal talk page link is not a personal attack or a insult - no, sorry, it is indeed a personal attack. WP:CIVIL is one of the Five Pillars, it is not optional and you seem to spend a lot of time tap-dancing on or over the line of it. I suggest you reconsider your approach in many areas to maintain a civil, collaborative environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: I made that comment based on a comment they made here. I also took into consideration the fact that they reviewed my GAN as their very first review less than 24 hours (if I'm not mistaken) after nomination. And so I'd say that's my evidence for the comment. I apologize if this is not enough. Regarding the Narwhal bit, I didn't intend to make the comment a personal aattack. I intended to make it clear to the IP that I didn't want them to annoy me with those pings. I could have handled the situation better, I agree. But what I found annoying was that they attacked me on the basis of a YouTube video that discusses how I wrongfully reverted the creator's edit, only to later realize my mistake, rectifying it accordingly. Nevertheless, I will definitely take your words above into consideration. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it is understandable that you would be curt with an IP who is only here to act as the peanut gallery to comment on the video you were in. But that said, the way you dismissed someone's concerns regarding text–source integrity is still inexcusable. If someone deletes text from an article stating The cited paper, "Sensory ability in the narwhal tooth organ system", does not reflect the claim that "male narwhals may exchange information". I cannot find this claim in any other citation then it is never appropriate to reinstate text that another user says is not supported by the source unless you can verify that the text is actually supported by the source. You told her read the other sources that support this statement and when she asked Can you indicate to me the source which claims information is transferred? you responded Please focus on other pages. I'm working on this particular entry, and your modifications are not helpful. And to answer your question, just look at the citation after the statement.

This user went through the trouble of checking all the sources, even purchasing one of the books so she could check it herself, and you just dismissed her telling her to read a source (that she already had) that you yourself had not read. I will give you credit for eventually checking the sources and realizing that User:HGModernism was correct and the source didn't support the text, but your behavior towards her was still aggravating and inappropriate. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

if i may,
Elmidae did comment on your high number of edits during the narwhal talk page discussion, although in passing. TangoFett agreed with The Morrison Man on your talk page. either way, it is good practice to listen to and be considerate your fellow editors regardless of whether it's one or one hundred of them.
additionally, one can go through the four peer reviews and five FACs within 6 months to find more convincing evidence of what TMM is describing.

• FAC 1: "I believe this nomination should receive a support by now... You guys are all unwilling to complete your reviews."
• PR 2: (after 5 days - PRs are not time-sensitive) "By the time this peer review is 20 years old, I would like to reopen it for FAC, therefore I ask you to begin reviewing."
• FAC 3: (tim riley explains on 3 july that he is having hand surgery shortly) "@Tim riley: well?" on 10 july; "@RoySmith: You can't oppose on that. I request another spot check. @FAC coordinators"; "If only people would do a proper source review. This nomination archived too soon."
• PR 4: "No one is willing to undertake a source review as it has been more than ten days. I'm going to close this peer review and give myself a decade before I submit this article for FAC consideration once more."
• FAC 5: (after UC had given multiple extensive reviews for previous nominations) "I don't know why you're not giving this article any chance at all. Please do a full review, then vote... I would appreciate more kindness and consideration from you."; (re Airship) "...I see no need for having you here. To be honest, you are simply loitering and taking up unnecessary space."; "I tried communicating with UC but it seems like they don't want to."

i have chosen some representative quotes, but i suggest clicking through and reading/skimming each "article milestone" on Talk:Narwhal for the full context. in my own analysis, i see an editor who clearly wants to improve articles, and has done so many times, but simply will not get the point when constructive criticism is levied at their projects. Mike Christie already said this at FAC #5, but UndercoverClassicist is one of the most diligent and helpful reviewers at FAC - i have never seen him lose his patience like this, and that says something to me. from FAC 1 to FAC 5, Wolverine has displayed little of the kindness, consideration, or patience which he has demanded from reviewers. wikipedia is a volunteer project, and that extends to our content review processes, which are especially vulnerable to reviewer burnout from this exact type of attitude. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer not to get involved in an ANI discussion, but here we are. I will add my statement of also having noticed Wolverine XI's less than mature behavior at the List of pholidotans merge, and the time they- without making significant improvements- nominated Fishing cat for Good Article three times in a row before it passed (and without really addressing the comments of the two reviewers who failed it).

Unfortunately, I feel it necessary to point out that Wolverine's frequent username changes make looking into their past activity difficult. But since his first(?) time here at AN ([link]) his fast editing and unwillingness to learn has been a problem, and unfortunately Wolverine is currently on his last chance. It's been a year since he was unblocked and he still hasn't learned, and I no longer have much hope that he will. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - Without a comment to the conduct of Wolverine X-eye, I want to make the note that List of pholidotans was at both in a merge discussion and FLC at the same time. The nomination for FLC stalled while the merge discussion happened. The list was ultimately promoted. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 16:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I know my behavior on the List of Pholidota was wrong and I apologize for it. I just got heated after what I felt was uncivil comments directed towards me by Elmidae. I could have responded better, I agree. Regarding fishing cat I did what I could with that article and have already responded elsewhere. Content building can be stressful, so comments that are made may not accurately depict your actual intent. Not saying that's the case here. I was also new to the GAN process, and thus made some mistakes. Perhaps maybe a break from GAN is the way here. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The new-to-this excuse does not fly anymore; you've been trying to get articles to GA for over a year now. And you keep saying you'll do this or that but never actually do it. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I've stopped taking on numerous reviews and really haven't been reviewing that much as of late and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. And I said I "was" new, notice that is in the past tense. I will take it slow with the GAN process and avoid making repeated GANs like fishing cat. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Even at the time of submitting fishing cat for GAN, you weren't exactly new to the process. This was three months after you did your first GAN (sei whale), and in that time you also completed them for four other articles (Megaherbivore, Indian rhinoceros, brown bear and snowy albatross). The Morrison Man (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Under a previous username, User:Dancing Dollar, they brought snow leopard to GA a year and a half ago. He hasn't been new for months. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Completely forgot about that one. OK, so I may not have been new in terms of nominating, but I was in terms of failing, as fishing cat was my first GAN fail and I really didn't know how to react to that. I also didn't have a great understanding of spot checks, citation style and other such stuff that makes a good review. I really only knew how to do a prose, image, and earwig check. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Wolverine is the new username of "20 upper", a user who has previously beeen indefinitely been blocked for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing nearly 2 years ago now. They aren't a "newbie" by any stretch, and they should know better. They need to be firmly told to knock if off regarding rapid fire editing and disruptive repeated GA nominations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block

For continued disruptive editing and WP:CIR issues after his "last chance unblock" (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive357#Unblock/unban_request_for_20_upper, "20 upper" is the old username for Wolverine) I propose that Wolverine X-Eye be indefinitely blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak support - While this is highly problematic behavior, I really don’t think an indefinite block would be the best outcome of this (I’ve had several good interactions with them in the past), although an indefinite topic ban from the GA process (reviewing, nominating, etc.) is warranted, and maybe that could also be discussed. I initially opposed this, but after the last-chance unblock was brought up I'm weakly supporting. E_F⁵ 18:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Wolverine was told in 2023 that: this is a last-chance unblock - any further misconduct will result in an indefinite block.[52] and yet he's completely failed to mature or improve in any way. He's just as abraisive and incompetent as his was back then. Enough is enough. Sometimes you've got to put the boot down. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see that they are on a last-chance block, I've changed my vote accordingly. E_F⁵ 18:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll admit that I was uncivil in those incidents mentioned above and I apologize. I'll take a ban at GAN process. I've mostly remained civil throughout the first year I came back, but there were some incidents were I was unwittingly uncivil. I request one-last chance. I promise you I had no intentions of insulting anyone. I took on more GA reviews than I could at GAN and that was my fault. I only wanted to improve articles. Please take this in consideration. I've not violated any content policy like I did the first time out. I know my behavior in GAN is bad, but I promise you that's not how most of my interactions are. Thank you, Wolverine X-eye (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

If you had one last chance you would be indefinitely blocked. What you are requesting is two last chances. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, this will be my last response: I'm sorry. I didn't mean any harm. People make mistakes. It was not my intention to be uncivil. I know I've made mistakes during my GA-run like not being able to finish reviews, making multiple nominations and not responding well in the Fennec fox GAN. I think a ban from the GAN process is the best option here, because I do try to improve Wikipedia articles. When the Morrison Man warned me about my editing style, I thought he only meant the edits I made to the pages he linked above. I guess I was wrong. I really tried my best to be as productive as I can. I really did. But huh, if this is how the community wants things to end then let it be. I guess this is my last edit. I want to thank everyone who has been good to me. Your kindness made this experience somewhat more pleasant. One last request: please blank my page but do not delete it and add all my current talk page messages to archive 3. Time to scramble my password then. Wolverine X-eye (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. At some point, second chances run out. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support – reluctantly, as I have engaged with this user on multiple occasions mostly at GAN and FAC, in the hope that they would improve. But it has to end now, it is hurting the project. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. this user has consistently done this with disregard for their actions. a second chance is futile, as this would definitely not be the second. Calamacow75 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. I also want to point out an element that few people have noted : even if Wolverine still had the potential to better themselves as an editor, the comments he had towards Dxneo, doing justice himself, accusing a fellow editor of being a creep trying to acquire personal informations from a minor, despite the other user stating themselves that they were adult, and seemingly out of spite after being accused of not having done any review of the Sleeping Beauty GA review he had taken and seemingly refusing to close it, forcing Dxneo to do it thoroughly himself. Of this affair, a few conclusions can be taken :

• Wolverine actually hinders the GA review process by placating low standards, trying to reroll every couple of weeks articles he wants to get to GA in the hope of attracting reviewers with a layman knowledge of the subject and low standards of appreciation, which creates substandard messes such as the megaherbivore article, that he credits himself for despite barely writing anything ;
• Wolverine takes up reviews that he will never actually review, creating cold cases that other people will have to close by themselves. Since the review system is seemingly based on how many reviews a person has reviewed themselves, this is a clear sign that Wolverine try to abuse the system ;
• Even more worryingly, Wolverine clearly strongarms people that disagree with them. I've been a victim of this clear bad behaviour when opposing his GA nomination of Fennec fox, I was called out for my, I quote, "inexperience", despite them now claiming inexperience as a defense point. If it don't really impact me much, in the case of others, however, being menaced of being reported for an actual crime (in fact, a simple off-topic discussion between two able-bodied consenting adults), for a perceived slight, consequences may have been much dire ;
• And, as a corollary, I still don't think the Fennec fox article is in a GA state currently, and I think we should seriously think about demoting the substandards articles promoted by Wolverine - Narwhal, Megaherbivore come also to mind - or at least organising a thorough peer review with experienced editors.
• Larrayal (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. As Larrayal points out, Wolverine actively hinders the GA review process and I agree with we should consider demoting the articles promoted by them. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

despite the other user stating themselves that they were adult for the record, the other user appears to have stated they were 13. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

I'm honestly confused by that conversation, even upon rereading. It seems Dxneo says they are 23, and Dissainkabi says they are 13. But later Dxneo says Dissainkabi is one year older than them, and it seems Dissainkabi's sister took their phone and was replying on their behalf at the start. Regardless, I think it's inappropriate for Wolverine to be "reviewing" a user talkpage and condemning a friendly conversation for not following WP:NOTFORUM. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that was odd - but agreed, they aren't the WikiPolice and shouldn't act like it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support, enough chances already. Bishonen | tålk 22:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC).

Support Per nomination. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Throughout their activity this past year or so Wolverine has been asked repeatedly to adjust their editing style and behavior, only to ignore any sort of push back and try to force their way into obtaining the GA status often simply through spamming the nomination back to back without putting in the work. While it would of course have been preferable for him to learn from the repeated critiques and become a productive editor, it is clear that he refuses to change his ways, making up excuses whenever he gets close to facing consequences (even now). Coupled with his other behavior and previous alt accounts factoring into this, an indefinite block seems to be the last option.Armin Reindl (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content by 78.135.166.12

78.135.166.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps adding unsourced content to articles, continued after final warning & hasn't responded to warnings. Examples of addition of unsourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4 (addition of content not in pre-existing source, Pixar not mentioned), 5. Waxworker (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

IP is still continuing to add unsourced content to articles after final warning. See here, and here where the added content again isn't in the pre-existing source, the ref doesn't mention Pixar. Waxworker (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Xegma

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

---

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

It appears that this editor's account has been compromised. See their recent editing history (which is certainly odd) starting today on Jan 12th. They also closed this AfD in a very strange manner (even with poor grammar), and they're apparently claiming to be the person who is the subject of that article. Very strange indeed. Pinging Taabii (the editor who nominated the article) for some input on this situation. I would suggest blocking to prevent further disruption, and until the situation is settled. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@CycloneYoris I got mail from Xegma, which I already disclosed in the Deletion Discussion, I can forward the mail if anyone wants. Taabii (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Taabii: But Xegma claims to be female (as you can see on their userpage) and not male. So it makes no sense, and their e-mail could've been compromised as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I've fixed the mess caused by the AfD being closed early and inappropriately by a non-admin (close reverted and discussion reopened per WP:NACD), and by draftifying the article but then having it recreated with no history (recreation deleted, draft with all the history moved back to mainspace, redirects deleted). Haven't looked into the compromised bit and will need to sign off shortly. Daniel (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing looking comprised to me. The grammar and prose-writing is consistent with their comments here (which is why I recognised the username). @CycloneYoris: in which edit are they "apparently claiming to be the person who is the subject of that article", out of curiosity? Might have missed a comment somewhere so just wanted to be sure. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel: Taabii apparently received this information via e-mail, as they've stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susovan Roy (2nd nomination). CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw that. I'll reclose AfD1 as procedural close given AfD2 is now running. Taabii, a note for next time - if someone inappropriately closes an AfD like this, please take to either their user talk page or Deletion Review, rather than starting a new AfD immediately. No stress on this occasion, just a little bit extra paperwork to clean up, but DRV is best practice. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, Yes I've mail the nominator as a personal interest of that subject, as you can see my past article creation that I've created articles about bengali actors and actresses. Then when I'm going to start that article of that subject And I have seen that someone created that article and I've reviewed it. I've added the article on my watchlist to edit and then I've seen that they nominated for it on Afd and I'm sorry that I've mentioned on the mail that "I'm that subject" that's only I've mentioned for my personal interest or nothing. The nominator also mail me in the past for reviewing their articles and I've also reviewed their article and also you can see they have requested on my talkpage to review of their article. Xegma(talk) 09:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Xegma Yes, I requested you to review my articles but I don't have any personal interest in those articles. If I would have ever in future, I'll surely follow the Guidelines to disclose. Also, You mailed me — "Hi Taabi, this is my article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susovan_Roy why you tag deletion for it. Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it." Taabii (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Xegma: Thank you for your response, and for clarifying the situation. I guess it's now safe to say that this issue has been resolved. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@CycloneYoris How can she write "Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it." by mistake? I am damn sure that Xegma is hiding the truth. Taabii (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Taabii: Perhaps. Although I do think that they at least clarified, albeit with broken English, that their account wasn't compromised (which is why I thanked them above). The issue regarding their identity, on the other hand, still remains a mystery. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Sorry for starting the new AFD, I was really unaware of that. I tried to Undo the edits of Xegma, but it looked impossible for me. Taabii (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I have p-blocked @Xegma from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susovan Roy (2nd nomination) to avoid any issues there. They remain welcome to contribute elsewhere. Star Mississippi 14:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I am confused and concerned about what Xegma wrote above and admitting writing the email that Taabii has described. Xegma is an editor who, on her userpage and in previous conversations, has gone out of her way to describe herself as female. The user also states This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday. But the user has apparently claimed to be Susovan Roy, a person who is obviously male. When I read the "explanation" I'm sorry that I've mentioned on the mail that "I'm that subject" that's only I've mentioned for my personal interest or nothing, I am even more mystified. On her userpage, Xegma claims This user has a native understanding of English and yet the things they wrote above are baffling and not indicative of native English language competence. There is an expectation that every Wikipedia editor will tell the truth, fully and frankly (especially if they hope to become an adminisrator someday), and I have very serious doubts about Xegma's honesty about several matters at this point. I hope for a much more detailed and thoughtful explanation of these inconsistencies. Cullen328 (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blogs19/Archive. Spicy (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

First of all I'm apolozing for my English is not that good and my languages are Hindi and Bengali. and second I'm really sorry for my behaviour and will not happen in the future. Thanks. Xegma(talk) 12:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Xegma, since you admit that your English is not that good, then please edit your userpage for accuracy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

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